A Dalton Minimum Repeat is Shaping Up

The sun went spotless yesterday, the first time in quite awhile. It seems like a good time to present this analysis from my friend David Archibald. For those not familiar with the Dalton Minimum, here’s some background info from Wiki:

The Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity, named after the English meteorologist John Dalton, lasting from about 1790 to 1830.[1] Like the Maunder Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Dalton Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures. The Oberlach Station in Germany, for example, experienced a 2.0°C decline over 20 years.[2] The Year Without a Summer, in 1816, also occurred during the Dalton Minimum. Solar cycles 5 and 6, as shown below, were greatly reduced in amplitude. – Anthony

The Dalton minimum in the 400 year history of sunspot numbers

Guest post by David Archibald
James Marusek emailed me to ask if I could update a particular graph. Now that it is a full two years since the month of solar minimum, this was a good opportunity to update a lot of graphs of solar activity.

Figure 1: Solar Polar Magnetic Field Strength

The Sun’s current low level of activity starts from the low level of solar polar magnetic field strength at the 23/24 minimum. This was half the level at the previous minimum, and Solar Cycle 24 is expected to be just under half the amplitude of Solar Cycle 23.

Figure 2: Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle

It is said that solar minimum isn’t reached until the heliospheric current sheet tilt angle has flattened. While the month of minimum for the 23/24 transition is considered to be December 2008, the heliospheric current sheet didn’t flatten until June 2009.

Figure 3: Interplanetary Magnetic Field

The Interplanetary Magnetic Field remains very weak. It is almost back to the levels reached in previous solar minima.

Figure 4: Ap Index 1932 – 2010

The Ap Index remains under the levels of previous solar minima.

Figure 5: F10.7 Flux 1948 – 2010

The F10.7 Flux is a more accurate indicator of solar activity than the sunspot number. It remains low.

Figure 6: F10.7 Flux aligned on solar minima

In this figure, the F10.7 flux of the last six solar minima are aligned on the month of minimum, with the two years of decline to the minimum and three years of subsequent rise. The Solar Cycle 24 trajectory is much lower and flatter than the rises of the five previous cycles.

Figure 7: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 210

A weaker interplanetary magnetic field means more cosmic rays reach the inner planets of the solar system. The neutron count was higher this minimum than in the previous record. Thanks to the correlation between the F10.7 Flux and the neutron count in Figure 8 following, we now have a target for the Oulu neutron count at Solar Cycle 24 maximum in late 2014 of 6,150.

Figure 8: Oulu Neutron Flux plotted against lagged F10.7 flux

Neutron count tends to peak one year after solar minimum. Figure 8 was created by plotting Oulu neutron count against the F10.7 flux lagged by one year. The relationship demonstrated by this graph indicates that the most likely value for the Oulu neutron count at the Solar Cycle 24 maximum expected to be a F10.7 flux value of 100 in late 2014 will be 6,150.

Figure 9: Solar Cycle 24 compared to Solar Cycle 5

I predicted in a paper published in March 2006 that Solar Cycles 24 and 25 would repeat the experience of the Dalton Minimum. With two years of Solar Cycle 24 data in hand, the trajectory established is repeating the rise of Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum. The prediction is confirmed. Like Solar Cycles 5 and 6, Solar Cycle 24 is expected to be 12 years long. Solar maximum will be in late 2014/early 2015.

Figure 10: North America Snow Cover Ex-Greenland

The northern hemisphere is experiencing its fourth consecutive cold winter. The current winter is one of the coldest for a hundred years or more. For cold winters to provide positive feedback, snow cover has to survive from one winter to the next so that snow’s higher albedo relative to bare rock will reflect sunlight into space, causing cooler summers. The month of snow cover minimum is most often August, sometimes July. We have to wait another eight months to find out how this winter went in terms of retained snow cover. The 1970s cooling period had much higher snow cover minima than the last thirty years. Despite the last few cold winters, there was no increase in the snow cover minima. The snow cover minimum may have to get to over two million square kilometres before it starts having a significant effect.

David Archibald

December 2010

The Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity, named after the English meteorologist John Dalton, lasting from about 1790 to 1830.[1] Like the Maunder Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Dalton Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures. The Oberlach Station in Germany, for example, experienced a 2.0°C decline over 20 years.[2] The Year Without a Summer, in 1816, also occurred during the Dalton Minimum.
About these ads

315 thoughts on “A Dalton Minimum Repeat is Shaping Up

  1. “I predicted in a paper published in March 2006 that Solar Cycles 24 and 25 would repeat the experience of the Dalton Minimum.”

    Why do you believe it will last two cycles or be limited to two cycles? What gives you the impression that it will mimic exactly the Dalton minimum? My gut says “past performance does not indicate future results”. We might be in for one or three weak cycles, I don’t think we quite know. We might be in for 1000 years of weaker activity for all we know. Do we have, other than the Dalton, any documented previous two cycle weak periods?

  2. It is quite probably that we’ll be seeing a new Dalton Minimum. A global cooling? I’ll bet the man is responsible for it! lol

  3. The sun has probably been spotless on several occasions recently but those doing the counting have been using a large magnifying glass to count every pixel in a desperate attempt to pump-up the numbers. Some would even like to change the system and use the STEREO Behind / STEREO Ahead satellites to count sunspots out of sight of earth; to bump-up the numbers even more.

  4. Figure 10 is the key. Winter snow is to be expected. The problems begin if it doesn’t melt in the summer, then we are in for trouble.

  5. Well, it is a good article, and your arguments appear sound….

    And, at least as far as the repeat of the Dalton Minimum, I agree with your conclusions. However, I sincerely hope that you are wrong about a 2c drop for a few decades, the links between global cooling and grand solar minimums are a bit more tenuous and I am holding out hope that the cooling observed was coincidence or not as severe as what we have in our future. Or maybe CAGW might save us. (That would be funny!)

    I believe if there is a 2c drop it could be disaster for humanity especially if the warmies and watermelons get what they want and world governments are blindsided by the cold.

  6. Excellent overview of the status of our warming star. If these relations hold we are in for some “cool”surprises. See various descriptions of winters in the 1790 – 1830 period.

  7. Well we’re having a cold FALL, winter is yet to be determined! Thanks for the update, I was wondering when we’d see a new “prediction” from NASA updating their incorrect one. So far David Archibald’s predictions have been MUCH more accurate than almost everyone else’s. Pretty impressive so far but the jury is still out and it will be many years before we know for sure that he really nailed it.

  8. So 2009 and 2010 should have been half a degree C colder than it was around 1970. But they aren’t. How come?

  9. After the obligatory nod to AGW, in his last para, Boris says:

    “The question is whether anthropogenic global warming is the exclusive or dominant fact that determines our climate, or whether Corbyn is also right to insist on the role of the Sun. Is it possible that everything we do is dwarfed by the moods of the star that gives life to the world? The Sun is incomparably vaster and more powerful than any work of man. We are forged from a few clods of solar dust. The Sun powers every plant and form of life, and one day the Sun will turn into a red giant and engulf us all. Then it will burn out. Then it will get very nippy indeed.”

    Methinks that Boris’ true leanings are more accurately conveyed in this para than the one with the nod.

  10. Robert M says:
    December 20, 2010 at 12:46 am

    I believe if there is a 2c drop it could be disaster for humanity especially if the warmies and watermelons get what they want and world governments are blindsided by the cold.

    I am of the mind that we need to start seeing a significant drop in temperatures for the sake of humanity. For all the damage this would do (crops would suffer, millions would die of starvation and cold-related deaths) it would pale besides the damage our corrupt leaders and the UN would inflict on us. We have already seen deaths from starvation due to tax-subsidised farmers growing biofuel instead of food (pushing food prices through the roof). We have already seen masses of jobs lost as once-free businesses fail to compete with the tax-funded green industry. We have already seen energy bills sky-rocket. We have already seen an entire section of the population – i.e. those who know that scepticism in science is an essential element – stigmatised by our own political representatives as “climate deniers” (Gordon Brown used the term on many occasions during his short, unelected period in office, as does Obama, as do most of the unelected EU, as do most of the unelected UN). We have already seen Government-produced propaganda targeted towards children, designed to scare them and if necessary to turn them against their sceptical parents. This is showing no signs of stopping, despite the complete failure of alarmists to prove their corrupt hypothesis. If anything, the more evidence that mounts against them (i.e. that the recent warming is part of a natural cycle, and is nothing remotely unusual), the more totalitarian they become.

    So again, I say bring on the cold.

  11. RR Kampen says:
    December 20, 2010 at 1:08 am

    So 2009 and 2010 should have been half a degree C colder than it was around 1970. But they aren’t. How come?

    There are two questions to be answered before that one can be: What other effects are in play, and how reliable is the temperature record? The latter has to be answered before we can begin to assess the former. Given that the temperature record has been repeatedly proven unreliable, we can’t answer for sure. We can’t say whether the 70s were colder because we have no reliable record to demonstrate that they were, in fact colder. The implication is that we cannot then ask what is causing now to be warmer, as we have no actual knowledge that it is, in fact, warmer.

    If your data is unreliable, any comparisons you make are invalid.

  12. The prediction is not consistent with the Livingston/Penn forecast. Four years from now the sunspotnumber will be around 10 and cycle 25 will be substantially weaker than cycle 24. Looks much different, more like a Maunder minimum.
    But in medio 2011 there will be certainty.

  13. So for now, the projection is a Dalton minimum type, not Maundeer minimum, which has a worse and longer cooling than Dalton. David Archibald’s analysis is similar to Svensmark’s right? And which Leif Svalgaard, Willie Soon, others do not really agree with?

  14. “J.Gommers says:
    December 20, 2010 at 2:02 am

    The prediction is not consistent with the Livingston/Penn forecast. Four years from now the sunspotnumber will be around 10 and cycle 25 will be substantially weaker than cycle 24. Looks much different, more like a Maunder minimum.
    But in medio 2011 there will be certainty.”

    Got to agree with you. I don’t think we are looking far enough back for comparisons. Even during the Maunder there were periods of a flurry of activity just to soon fall apart and go quiet again. This was in the period ~1640-1695. That’s the signature we should watch for if this is truly a more severe minimum.

  15. I think Anthony needs to make a “Sun Page” rather like the “ice page” and start gathering a bunch of solar graphs and status pages in it.

    Somehow I think it’s going to become a very “hot” topic for the next decade or so…

    FWIW, here in California, I’ve been getting drenched all day. Common 40 years ago, not very common the last decade or two. There’s something to this cycles stuff.

    Along the way, I started playing with StormPredator to look at the clouds, then discovered it has a ‘total rain this storm’ option (and a lot more). The bottom line is that I had a great time playing with it and looking at what was sitting on top of me all day…

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/rain-radar-now/

    And if you know anyone interested in weather or the storms from this present cooling cycle (at least if they are in the USA where this covers) it would make a decent stocking stuffer.

    Just one guys opinion. But you can look at the pictures of what I was looking at today, and think how much more comfy it is to do that from the warm inside rather than going out into it to figure out just how bad it really is…

    I think I’m going to be using that kind of picture, from StormPredator, in several postings to come as “things happen” during this increasingly cold and snowy decade…

  16. E.M.Smith said (December 20, 2010 at 2:31 am): But you can look at the pictures of what I was looking at today, and think how much more comfy it is to do that from the warm inside rather than going out into it to figure out just how bad it really is…

    Is this a message, E, M,?

  17. I think one of the things you have to remember is the oceans hold allot of heat and solar cycle 22 & 23 were much higher than were seeing now, it takes time for some of that latent heat to be removed from the oceans. I think it will be the gradual step down over the next 10 or 20 years for the ocean’s to return to temps seen during the Dalton Min. We get to watch the great climate machine work through its natural pace, irrespective of what man’s little influence is to or climate.

  18. Thank you David, that is interesting work and it sounds plausible. But earlier on this blog I got blamed for appealing to authority and was encouraged to think for myself, so let’s try some logic on this. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    Given that solar activity has been low in recent years and knowing that this gives a cooling effect, but that high average global temperatures have nonetheless been observed (with each subsequent decade being warmer than the previous for the past several decades), can we conclude that carbon-induced global warming has so far been stronger than the cooling effect of low solar activity?

    And assuming that solar activity has inadequately been accounted for in climate models, does this imply that the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on world average temperature may have been underestimated?

  19. David Archibald presents the data and makes cautious predictions and I suspect that, like any good scientist, he can’t wait for the next few years to pass to see if his predictions are valid. If not, he’ll change his interpretation . Well done David, as usual.
    I agree with DavidUK that our scientifically illiterate politicians and their completely mad fixation with energy policies, which will potentially destroy economies, are far more of a threat than any climate variation.
    Check out the windmill electricity contribution at NETA.

  20. SS, so tell me this mechanism by which low solar activity recently has acted on the climate. Your timeline should follow, right?
    ========

  21. So any lags in global temperature associated with this?

    Because where ever you think 2010 global temp is going to finish it’s going to take a stretch to describe it as cool no matter how many personnel reports of it being cold outside. Certainly the UAH satellite data doesn’t seem to have it cool.

  22. Sense Seeker says:
    December 20, 2010 at 3:10 am

    Given that solar activity has been low in recent years and knowing that this gives a cooling effect, but that high average global temperatures have nonetheless been observed (with each subsequent decade being warmer than the previous for the past several decades), can we conclude that carbon-induced global warming has so far been stronger than the cooling effect of low solar activity?

    Errr no we can’t, not until the full effects of ocean lag times is taken into consideration.

    You know it makes sense.

  23. Just out of curiosity where does the data from Oberlach Station come from? A google search just keeps coming up with quotes from Wiki. I see the Wiki article refers to Archibald. Any help?

  24. “Sense Seeker says:
    December 20, 2010 at 3:10 am

    And assuming that solar activity has inadequately been accounted for in climate models, does this imply that the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on world average temperature may have been underestimated?”

    One first needs to MEASURE world (I assume you also mean “global”?) average temperatures. So far, climatologists aren’t doing a terribly good job at that. Which makes everything they say totally meaningless.

  25. Question to David Archibald: is there any area of weather and/or climate where you and Indigo Jones have insights, observations, knowledge or predictions in common?

  26. Solar output is ‘modulated’ (possibly initiated ) by the rest of the solar system mainly 2-3 planets with the largest magnetospheres. Unlike solar iradiance (TSI) which is coming from sun, a single source and is radially distributed, there are 4-5 sources of strong magnetic fields. There is probability that these interact through electric current loop within the heliosphere (existence of which solar experts deny). Only recently NASA has recognised existence of ‘magnetic ropes’ , which in reality is no more than a electric current loop.
    The evidence of these magnetic interactions can be seen in the correlation of the Arctic magnetic field and solar activity.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm

    when I discovered this correlation, certain scientist vehemently denied it, I was called charlatan, danger to society and worse, to be eventually banned from the SC24 blog.
    This is the reality that science never bothered with.
    Formulae that give a close approximation of solar activity

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm

    and solar polar fields

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm

    are all based on assumptions that there are close interactions within solar system.
    Since purely mechanical connection has been dissected in very fine detail and no evidence could be found, the electro-magnetic coupling is the only possible alternative.
    Solar physics is still glued to the Parker’s models, frozen magnetic field in plasma (which is a contradiction in itself), in denial of electric current’s half of the equation (magnetic field and electric currents are inseparable!), despite daily discoveries coming out of NASA, always proclaiming unexpected.
    Era of the false idea of ‘frozen magnetic field’ in solar science is belatedly coming to an end, and finally true physics of Faraday, Lorentz and Maxwell will flourish.

  27. Interesting the Sun had a really big “cough/sneeze” last week, and now seems to have gone back to sleep. Maybe Al Gore can take some chook soup up there to wake it up a bit? This climate disruption is getting cold, even for a POME in an Australian summer. Max 22c today (I don’t mind this actually, the bugs are kept at bay. And I had a Huntsman spider on the INSIDE of the windscreen of my car the other day – sheet).

  28. So far DA has been 100% correct with his prediction (except delayed drop in temps which are occurring now BTW). So far as I can tell D hathaway and L Svalgard way off in nearly all solar statements and analysis…. good on you DA!

  29. Baa, a lag effect of the oceans is not a very plausible explanation (not to say humbug). Solar activity has at best been essentially flat since at least 1980, so the oceans should have caught up by now. You can see that the ‘1970s cooling period’ followed a period of low solar activity with a lag time of 10 years at the very most.

    Also, since 1980 temperature has gone up by about 0.5 degrees Celsius, you’d need a very impressive lag effect to explain that, given flat solar activity.

    There’s gotta be something else that explains this temperature pattern. (And the rest of the world knows what it is. You know it makes sense.)

  30. I endorse the suggestion that Anthony should start a sun page.

    As I see matters, we have a lot of data but no one really knows what it means and the extent of its implications. I think that we may have to wait more until 2013/4 to really be sure how the cycles are panning out.

    My gut tells me that the sun has a much more influential role on climate than does a trace gas. The power of the sun is truly remarkable and its size and power difficult to comprehend. I can easily accept that there may be behavoiral issues of the sun which we presently do not know about and/or do not understand, especially since the data snap shot is over such a small period. In matters such as this, one has to consider geological time and it is crazy to seek to extrapolate too much from just a 100 years or even a 1000 years of (questionable) data. To add to the problems, it appears that the instrument record has been allowed to become so corrupted that it is patently unreliable such that we do not know for sure what the global temperatures (and how I dislike that concept) were during the last 70 years.

    I endorse the comment about the role of the oceans and the importance of their heat reservoir. I have for years been suggesting that we should disregard land temperature details (too unreliable because of urban spread) and simply look at ocean temps. The oceans cover approx 70% of the Earth and unlike land act as heat reservoirs. If the Earth is cooling due to less sun activity, it will take time for the oceans to dumpo their heat and before we feel the full extent of the cooling.

    I have never understood why we should be so worried about a 2 deg C increase in temperature. I think that it would be benefical. For the UK it would be wonderful since we would become more like Southern France and perhaps we could replace the Spannish Costas as a tourist destination; heaven knows that the UK needs something to replace all the lost industry over the course of the last 30 years. On the other hand, I consider that a 2 deg C drop in temperature would be a significant problem for the Northern Hemishpere and accross the food basket area of the globe. Man would obviously survive, but it would no doubt result in millions of deaths. I for one would be emigrating from the UK if it were to get colder.

    I think that we are living in interesting times and the next 10 years will establish whether there is any merit in the AGW conjecture. I doubt that there is. My concern is that the politicians are rushing around like headless chickens rushing full steam ahead beating the AGW drum and the need to decarbonize the western economies such that untold damage will be done in these next 10 years. What a shame, if only there was a way to hold them personally accountable for the damage they inflict and to reimburse the ordinary citizen for any increased taxes/subsidies levied upon the ordinary citizen.

  31. Dr T G Watkins says:
    December 20, 2010 at 3:16 am
    “…….I agree with DavidUK that our scientifically illiterate politicians and their completely mad fixation with energy policies, which will potentially destroy economies, are far more of a threat than any climate variation.
    Check out the windmill electricity contribution at NETA.”

    I check the temperature every morning here in the UK. Today’s (tied with two days ago) is the lowest so far this winter, and it’s %%%!!!*** freezing!
    Right now NETA gives 0.2% both for the last thirty minutes and twenty four hours. Just when we need all the energy we can get, these pointless monsters that disfigure our countryside are currently supplying just one fifth of one percent of our needs. A recent headline in the Daily Telegraph stated that this nonsense will add £500 to our energy bills.
    Complete and utter madness.
    Chris

  32. I’m also interested in the source of the “Oberlach Station in Germany”. I don’t live in Oberlach, but do live in Germany and couldn’t find any reference by internet searching, despite setting the language to German and using different engines. Also, the Wikipedia article doesn’t even have the reference for Dave A’s work, which it references, only a couple of page numbers from it– very confusing.

    In general though, thanks for this blog post: very interesting!

  33. Sense Seeker
    It’s been raining all over Australia, when it should be summertime dry.
    And it’s been cold in Sydney when it should be hot, but there a chill in the air and snow in the hills.
    I can’t remember this type of weather since the late 1940’s, which led to an extended period of cooler, wetter conditions, following the long drought of the 1930’s and early 1940’s.
    At best, the 60 year cycle has turned and we’re in for 30 years of cooler weather.
    At worst, the whole series of cycles is ending and we’re in for a much bleaker time. That will take a few years more before we can see which pattern prevails.

    You speak of the influence of CO2.
    Once you remove the true influence of UHI from the global indexes you will find no evidence of CO2 heating in the past 150 years of measured temperatures.

    Watch and learn – either the temperature is about to accelerate according to the IPCC 4th report, or it is about to decline.
    time will tell.

    We live in interesting times.

  34. Well, if you really want to compare with the Dalton minimum, isn’t it really essential to use data from that period? And compare that data set with the current one? Yet Archibald ends with data sets ranging from 1976, 1966,1930,2006 and then tries to connect it to 1776-1820 ish. Without using and raw data from 1776-1820 other than sunspot observations. Am I the only one who thinks this a bit strange?
    What’s needed is a flux measure for those dates in the Dalton or at worst a proxy from ice core data.Then you can compare.

    Go back to the data and try again before making predictions based on what at best could be described as a dodgy data set.

    This kind of science really gets me because I think that Archibald may have a valid point but it’s rather blunted because the scientific argument isn’t cutting enough, if you’ll excuse the mixed metaphore.

    Look at this data set, it goes back 11,000 years, until 50 years before now.
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/solanki2004-ssn.txt

    Then add the observations made from 1955 until 2010 (using raw data )and then , perhaps then you’ll get an interesting graph. Perhaps one could comment that proxies aren’t as reliable as the 10,7 flux raw data, but it’s the best we’ve got.And that mixing the two data sets is also dodgy. But hey,lets do it any way.

    look here

    http://cc.oulu.fi/%7Eusoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

    or here

    http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/j215.pdf

    Run the data through PAST http://www.nhm.uio.no/norges/past/download.html
    and paste your graph and hey presto, then, perhaps then you’ve got data you can compare. Then you could look for similarities with the rider ‘the past doesn’t guarantee the present’

    Basically the current argument runs like ‘its a Dalton rerun because I say so, because I predicted it'( based on data you can’t take seriously), and that’s just not good enough.

    You also forget that most of the Dalton cooling was volcanic, go check the sulphate core records (http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/IVI2/) and compare them for the time span you want to consider . It’s not enough to wag your finger and say ‘Ah but solar minimum causes volcanic eruptions because there is a correlation’. Go prove it.Correlation doesn’t mean cause.

    I spend my days telling students how important it is to respect the scientific method, but sometimes when I see this kind of argument, it just looks like pseudoscience. Intreresting, though provoking, bloggable ,but ultimatly dismissable because it lacks vigour.

    There’s no null hypothesis, no paper, no findings, no evidence, no method.

    Depressingly ,everything here can and will be dismissed, and really that’s a shame because we really need to keep an open mind.

  35. vukcevic says:
    December 20, 2010 at 1:41 am

    Dalton minimum winters (according to CETs) were not too bad.”

    I just picked a few examples starting at 1850, from this fascinating document….
    A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events – James A. Marusek

    http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.pdf

    1850 A.D. In Ireland in April, there were great floods in County Kerry
    1851 A.D. In Ireland, there were great and destructive floods alike in spring and autumn
    The summer of 1852 was remarkably hot in Russia, England, Holland, Belgium and France (two farmers died of heat in Netherlands)
    1853 A.D. In the United States in 1853, the Mississippi River froze solid enough to walk 200 miles from St Louis, Missouri to La Claire, Iowa – Floods is Wales and Ireland
    Winter of 1853 / 1854 A.D. severe France & Germany many rivers frozen, mild in UK.
    The winter of 1854-55 was quite severe in southern Russia, in Denmark, England, France, Spain and Italy.
    In 1857 there were three distinct periods of summer heat
    1860 A.D. In India during the years 1860-61, there was a severe drought in parts of the Punjaub and northwest provinces
    In England, the frost of December 1860 and January 1861 were remarkable. Christmas eve was extremely cold. In the valley of the Rea, the temperature dropped to -5.0° to -7.0° F (-20.6° to -21.7° C).70
    In Buenos Aires, Argentina, a drought occurred in 1863 and 1864.
    Winter of 1863 / 1864 A.D. The meteorological condition in the northern hemisphere during December 1863 and January 1864 were remarkable. A cold polar current flowed southward dramatically dropping temperatures in the middle of the United States (this was confined to a narrow band), and at the same time warm equatorial currents flowed northward over contiguous spaces, and thus restoring the general equilibrium of temperature and of pressure by opposite and parallel streams. At the same time an unbroken sheet of cold air, swept down through Eastern Europe, on the one side, to at least the Sandwich Islands on the other, flowed southward. Everywhere in this wide band severe temperatures were experienced
    The United States experienced severe cold and extensive snowstorm in the end of December 1863 and beginning of January 1864
    Winter of 1864 / 1865 A.D. The winter lasted from December to the end of March. The Seine River was frozen over at Paris, France
    Winter of 1866 / 1867 A.D. The Baltic Sea froze
    Winter of 1870 / 1871 A.D. The Baltic Sea froze
    1876 – 1879 A.D. This period produced many great droughts covering the globe
    Winter of 1876 / 1877 A.D. During the winter of 1876-77, the Baltic Sea was completely covered with ice.
    =========================
    even tho the record is incomplete, it should be possible to graph frozen rivers, maybe droughts/famine and flood events too.

  36. “Sense Seeker says:
    December 20, 2010 at 4:04 am

    Also, since 1980 temperature has gone up by about 0.5 degrees Celsius, you’d need a very impressive lag effect to explain that, given flat solar activity.”

    And since 1990, most rural stations have been pulled from the temperature record in favour of urban stations leading to “warming”. Funny that.

    The UK Met, The Australian BoM and New Zealand’s NIWA all “adjusted” temperature data. I wonder why (On the back of unlimited and perpetual funding)?

  37. Baa, a lag effect of the oceans is not a very plausible explanation (not to say humbug). Solar activity has at best been essentially flat since at least 1980, so the oceans should have caught up by now. You can see that the ’1970s cooling period’ followed a period of low solar activity with a lag time of 10 years at the very most.

    Also, since 1980 temperature has gone up by about 0.5 degrees Celsius, you’d need a very impressive lag effect to explain that, given flat solar activity.

    There’s gotta be something else that explains this temperature pattern. (And the rest of the world knows what it is. You know it makes sense.)

    Well you go ahead and keep racking your brain on what you and the world thinks it is and I’ll just patiently wait for the answer to come to me in 10 or so years.

  38. crosspatch says:
    December 20, 2010 at 12:16 am

    “I predicted in a paper published in March 2006 that Solar Cycles 24 and 25 would repeat the experience of the Dalton Minimum.”
    ————————–
    Why do you believe it will last two cycles or be limited to two cycles? What gives you the impression that it will mimic exactly the Dalton minimum?

    Good question, so many getting on the band wagon right now but they do not have a plausible theory as to why. Mike Lockwood today predicted this minimum will last for 200-300 years!

    The unnamed minimum we are in now will be weaker than the Dalton, but should last 2 solar cycles before recovering for a few decades and then falling back slightly before beginning an up ramp not unlike the period of the 1920-1960’s. The Dalton had a weak cycle 7 that continued the cold which we will not experience.

    How do I know this? It’s a simple method of measuring the angular momentum of the Sun and what we are experiencing now was predicted exactly in 2008 as seen in my 200 year solar prediction, which at the time was shunned by Anthony…..but maybe times have changed?

  39. Bill Jamison says:
    December 20, 2010 at 12:54 am

    > Well we’re having a cold FALL, winter is yet to be determined!

    Meteorologists and climatologists consider the month Dec-Feb to be winter, at least north of the tropics. Astronomers consider winter to be from its solstice to vernal equinox. Insolation physicists likely call it the three months with the lowest solar declination. When you see winter in many of these discussions, just substitute “meteorological winter”. It would be nice if posts and comments would do the same, at least up to the solstice.

  40. vukcevic says:
    December 20, 2010 at 3:33 am
    The opposition to your findings it is perfectly explained by Don Quixote: “Ladran, Sancho, segnal que cabalgamos.” “The dogs are barking, Sancho, it a sign that we are moving. “

  41. Pops says:
    December 20, 2010 at 12:43 am
    The sun has probably been spotless on several occasions recently but those doing the counting have been using a large magnifying glass to count every pixel in a desperate attempt to pump-up the numbers.
    On the contrary, the official count has been a bit too low. At any rate, cycle 24 is going to be low as predicted back in 2004 [by me] and 2003 [Schatten]. The cosmic ray count from Oulu is likely too high [it is difficult to maintain long-term stability]. Most other stations show that the current minimum has been on par with the minimum in 1965.

  42. Two important indicators point to the fact that we should be cooling – a sun gone to sleep (since ca. 2005-06) and the deepest la nina since 1976. Global temps are still high by all five metrics (NOAA, UAH, RSS, GISS, and HADCRUT). Sea surface temps look like they have bottomed out and may be on the rise again – perhaps another el nino within a year? The head oceanographer of the Navy predicts loss of summer sea ice in the arctic by 2020 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339475/Global-warming-Sandal-wearers-wont-save-greed-US-Navy-will.html#ixzz18ZccQwjm ).

    Will temps continue to rise and ice continue to melt? We’ll know within 5-10 years.

  43. > We have to wait another eight months to find out how this winter went in terms of retained snow cover.

    While I’m glad I’m not traveling through a UK airport, or not even my sister looking for a break in California weather, I know how long it will take my current New Hampshire snow cover to melt – no time at all because there’s no snow! Jus’ saying. Jus’ grousing, actually.

    Joe D’Aleo was making some noise comparing this winter to 2007/2008, by far the snowiest I’ve seen (a photo of my driveway snow pile made Icecap). Three years ago today we had 18 inches on the ground, three years ago tomorrow we had 25″ (63 cm).

    Look, snow gods, I didn’t want to buy that snowblower this year, the engine seized. (Long story). And it wasn’t that expensive! I think it’s about time for its snow protection effect to wear off. :-)

  44. RR Kampen says:
    December 20, 2010 at 1:08 am (Edit)
    So 2009 and 2010 should have been half a degree C colder than it was around 1970. But they aren’t. How come?

    HR and senseseeker might take note of this as well:

    When the sun goes quiet, energy previously stored in the ocean by incoming solar shortwave comes out again as El Nino’s. These events prop up the surface temperature even as ocean heat content falls, as it has for the last 7 years.

    This is why there is a seeming ‘lag’ between solar activity and surface temperature.

    But the sun is weak, cloud cover has increased, and so insolation *at the surface* isn’t rebuilding ocean heat content, so the La Nina’s following the El nino’s will take the surface temps lower than before the previous El Nino from now until the sun perks up again.

    My prediction is for a less drastic fall than David predicts, because the OHC is historically high following the highly active solar cycles of the late C20th, but it is still a fall.

    Enhanced co2 Greenhouse conjecture is dead in the water, because Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ isn’t hiding in the system, it is the figment of a failed model. There is no missing heat, we will have to make do with what heat the oceans are still retaining.

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/working-out-where-the-energy-goes-part-2-peter-berenyi/

  45. Is there a next glaciation period in there? We are overdue. And how would we know, it’s just getting cold. So little ice age or real ice age?

    We think we know what causes the glacial epochs, the Isthmus of Panama being plugged by plate tectonics about 4 million years ago, altering the ocean currents, but are there other triggers? It would make sense that something like sun cycles were the trigger, for real ice ages.

  46. During the Little Ice Age (and all the minima and the Big Ice Ages too) both poles experienced significant sea ice growth. Watch the sea ice global total for global cooling-warming indicators. It’s a kind’a global thermometer thingy-wingy. Atmospheric temperature is OK for any one ‘where’ at any one ‘time’ or from any one year to another year, but you don’t want to write home about it. Watch the sea ice. Watch the glaciers.

    PS: In today’s much abused and overpopulated world we’ve lost touch with a number of realities. One very important one is that you never trust a politician any farther than you can throw them. (I don’t think I can say that too often.)

  47. “The Year Without a Summer, in 1816, also occurred during the Dalton Minimum.”

    FYI The Year Without a Summer is widely acknowledged to have been caused by volcanic winter. Four large but not record setting eruptions from 1812-1814 in Japan, Indonesia, the Carribean, and the Phillipines had primed the atmosphere with dust before the main event in 1815 – the eruption of Mt. Tambura which was the biggest volcanic event in at least 1600 years.

    It is suspected that the Dalton Minimum was a contributing factor but not the primary factor of the catastrophic cooling in 1816.

  48. @Sense Seeker

    “Solar activity has at best been essentially flat since at least 1980, so the oceans should have caught up by now.”

    Yes but it’s been flat at the highest level since record-keeping of sunspots begin in the year 1600.

    If you have a constant flame under a pot of cold water the water keeps getting warmer even though the flame remains constant. Duh.

  49. When comparing SC24 with the Dalton Minimum it is important to allow for improvements in technology and counting method changes. The Layman’s Count attempts to mimic the Wolf reconstruction method of the Dalton which shows we are now at 5 days spotless…..the F10.7 values are also very low.

  50. Sense Seeker says:
    December 20, 2010 at 4:04 am
    Baa,

    For the globe to cool, first the oceans must divest themselves of some heat content. The recent El Nino as an example… The heat is passed into the gaseous part of the atmosphere and from there finds its way into space by the often described processes. While that is happening the air temperature must needs be higher than before, perhaps even at record levels. If one understands the source of the heat energy, one will be tempted to ascribe the elevated temperatures to a cooling process. The proof, one way or the other, will depend upon future conditions.

    Then there is past correlation to consider. Correlation may not be causation, but that’s the way to bet it. A hypothesis without correlation of some sort to back it up will not fare well. We are in some sort of solar minimum. The oceans are dumping heat content. We can see clearly where it is going, and it’s up. There is high correlation associating Solar events with temperatures. I putting my bets on cold to come. Seems like sense.

  51. The more the climate scientists talk up the heat given the past few winters, the more they totally shred their credibility with the public who have to wear the consequences of a government unprepared for these severe cold snaps.
    Its tough to believe in “global warming” when your constantly freezing your ass off.

  52. HR says:
    December 20, 2010 at 3:38 am

    David I found you’re paper.

    http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/Archibald.pdf

    You say compared to 2003 you predicted/expect a drop of 1.5oC by 2020. It’s 2010 now, 7 years after 2003 and 10 years to 2020. How do you think your prediction is holding up?

    It’s holding up better than the prediction of children in England not knowing what snow is.

    It’s holding up better than the prediction of an ice-free arctic ocean in the summer.

    It’s holding up better than the prediction of increasingly powerful Atlantic hurricanes.

    But the prediction that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones is holding up best of all.

  53. HR says:
    December 20, 2010 at 3:17 am
    So any lags in global temperature associated with this?

    Because where ever you think 2010 global temp is going to finish it’s going to take a stretch to describe it as cool no matter how many personnel reports of it being cold outside. Certainly the UAH satellite data doesn’t seem to have it cool.

    ‘Cool’ and ‘hot’ are measures of temperature.

    Temperature does not equal heat content

    A dry airmass (see http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/natl/flash-wv.html ) holds far less heat than a humid airmass. So all that dry air you can see near the tropics is really hot but holds far less heat than the humid airmass.

    Everyone is using the incorrect metric.

    After all the ‘green house gas’ theory is that ‘heat’ is trapped in the atmosphere. The amount of temperature rise in air depends on its enthalpy which is driven largely by its water vapor content.

    So scientists should stop measuring temperature and doing temperature comparisons ! They are meaningless.

  54. Casper says:
    December 20, 2010 at 12:23 am

    It is quite probably that we’ll be seeing a new Dalton Minimum. A global cooling? I’ll bet the man is responsible for it! lol
    ================================================
    NOPE !!!!!!!!!
    The natural cooling is just masking the CAGW !!!!
    That’s how it gets spun !!

  55. Vuksevic says

    Quote

    Only recently NASA has recognised existence of ‘magnetic ropes’ , which in reality is no more than a electric current loop.

    Unquote

    Now these electric currents have been identified and imaged, has their contact point with the atmosphere been tracked and their effects there noted. I have not seen any reports on this. They certainly are not locked in “frozen” magnetic fields.

    I find the possibility that the Earth draws additional energy from the Sun through these electrical connections to be full of possibilities and clarifications to many so called puzzles and enigmas, including climatic responses.

  56. @RR Kampen says:
    December 20, 2010 at 1:08 am

    “So 2009 and 2010 should have been half a degree C colder than it was around 1970. But they aren’t. How come?”

    Stronger warming around the equinoxes played a large part.

  57. Shouldn’t we be asking how carbon dioxide causes this lack of sunspots?

    After all this is the root cause of everything?

    Al Gore has said so. He has been backed up by David Suzuki & The Team.

    Must be true.

  58. David, UK says:
    December 20, 2010 at 1:54 am

    “I am of the mind that we need to start seeing a significant drop in temperatures for the sake of humanity. For all the damage this would do (crops would suffer, millions would die of starvation and cold-related deaths) it would pale besides the damage our corrupt leaders and the UN would inflict on us. ”

    I hear ya, David. It’s a classic choice between the lesser of two evils. Warming is good. Cooling is bad. Cooling will have worse consequences if resources today are used to formulate plans and build infracstructure for increasing warmth. Calling it “blindsided by cooling” is exactly right. The AGW faithful are about to get bitch-slapped by mother nature and we’re all going to feel the blow.


  59. I was called charlatan, danger to society and worse…

    Don’t take it to the heart Vuk, you’re not the first or the last from your country to be called such names.

  60. My main gripe with this article is “the 1970s cooling period”, because the cool period really started some time between 1945 and 1950 and lasted all until 1980. That means that the record strong solar cycle 19 was also well within this cold period, so to me, the conjecture that the “1970s cooling” was connected to the weak cycle 20 doesn’t seem well supported. And: the rapid warming from about 1920-1940 happened during two quite weak solar cycles.

  61. Geoff Sharp says:
    December 20, 2010 at 5:48 am
    The Layman’s Count attempts to mimic the Wolf reconstruction method of the Dalton
    There were very few observations during the Dalton minimum. Wolf used mainly counts of aurorae to reconstruct sunspot numbers. So, there is nothing to mimic.

  62. Re Sense Seeker says:
    December 20, 2010 at 4:04 am

    Seeker, you have to factor in cloud cover and cloud location. What heats the oceans is SWR at the SURFACE. This SWR has a long residence time within our earth’s ocean, land atmosphere. The longer the residence time, the more energy can accumalate.

    This led me to some thoughts about the seasons. Sunlight, falling on the Earth when it’s about 3,000,000 miles closer to the sun in January, is about 7% more intense than in July. Because the Northern Hemisphere has more land which heats easier then water most people state that the Earth’s average temperature is about 4 degrees F higher in July than January, when in fact they should be stating that the ATMOSPHERE is 4 degrees higher in July. In January this extra SW energy is being pumped into the oceans where the “residence time” within the Earth’s ocean land and atmosphere is the longest. Some of the energy increases the mean evaporation rate of the earth and is transmitted to latent heat before being released, but most of the extra energy is lost to the atmosphere for a time as it is contained within the ocean, but eventually it is radiated from the ocean as LWR and increased latent heat in water vapor.

    In actuality, due to the more intense southern sun’s SW radiation being trapped in the oceans, the earth is gaining energy in the southern hemisphere summers, and losing energy in the northern hemisphere summer. The extra energy is just hidden in the oceans for a time while the northern hemisphere summer reacts on a more sensitive atmosphere, creating a rise in atmospheric heat, but a net loss to the planet relative to the southern hemisphere summer.

    At Tallblokes site he has some charts on clould cover as well as TSI. BTW, a flat line at a substained high level can build over time, and the expanisve heating of the oceans over the last several decades correspondes well to a consitently high SWR input at the surface. You need to look not only at the peaks, but the duration of the high periods of TSI, as a smaller peak that continues for a greater period can have an equall or increased effect. AT any rate SWR rules this planets energy balance.

  63. Pops says:
    December 20, 2010 at 12:43 am

    The sun has probably been spotless on several occasions recently but those doing the counting have been using a large magnifying glass to count every pixel in a desperate attempt to pump-up the numbers. Some would even like to change the system and use the STEREO Behind / STEREO Ahead satellites to count sunspots out of sight of earth; to bump-up the numbers even more.

    Dead right.

  64. NASA proclaims a discovery (Dec 2007)
    NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights
    Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 1014) Joules. That’s approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake.
    Where does all that energy come from? THEMIS may have found an answer:
    “The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth’s upper atmosphere directly to the Sun,” says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. “We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras.”

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis/

    I wrote the Sunspot formulae in 2003 (published Jan 2004)

    http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf

    that not only predicted low SC24, but indicated even the lower SC25, and SC26.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm

    This is the time when the NASA’s top expert Dr. Hathaway (frozen field expert) was predicting highest ever SC24, and declared my work ‘irrelevant’. How wrong one can be!? Where were the experts in 2003?
    For some time now I have been advocating the idea that solar activity destabilises the Arctic magnetic field

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm

    which in the association with Arctic ocean currents, has profound effect on the N. Hemisphere’s climate.
    Currently this is also labelled ‘nonsense’ by the experts. Time will tell.

  65. Bill Jamison says:
    December 20, 2010 at 12:54 am

    “Well we’re having a cold FALL, winter is yet to be determined!”

    Same here in south central Texas. A few “hard” freezes where that’s defined as below 30 degrees and many mornings with light frost. More than usual for December but so far no really hard freezes yet which for us is dropping down into the teens along with not going above freezing at all for 48 or 72 hours. We don’t get much in the way of snowfall – maybe an inch or two at most that might stick for a couple of days. What we get more often are ice storms where everything gets covered in a half inch of perfectly clear ice.

  66. How does CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere effect the sun. That’s going to be a tough one. Maybe Al Gore would like to take a trip there and let us know what he finds.

    The more we know, we find, the less we really know. Can you imagine, if we used the climate science methodology to build bridges with?

  67. @ RR Kampen

    You should note, looking at the graphs provided in this post, that 1970 was several years into that solar cycle, and past solar maximum. Here in 2010 we have not yet approached maximum. Your comparison is not honest.

  68. Creighten says: “Then there is past correlation to consider. Correlation may not be causation, but that’s the way to bet it. A hypothesis without correlation of some sort to back it up will not fare well.”

    Oh my. So MUCH harm and sorrow has been caused in the past by just such a belief as you state regarding science. And much harm repaired by people courageous enough to purpose a hypothesis not so evident to the masses but proposed first through plausible mechanism, followed by observation, then through experimentation, and by every attempt to disprove it. Let us never, never go back to your way of thinking, else we find ourselves in a modern dark age.

  69. HR says:
    >>December 20, 2010 at 3:23 am
    Just out of curiosity where does the data from Oberlach Station come from? A google search just keeps coming up with quotes from Wiki. I see the Wiki article refers to Archibald. Any help?<<

    The reference was vandalised from Wikipedia. I have returned it. It is:

    http://climatepolice.com/Solar_Cycles.pdf

    See page 5 (pg 33). Mr Archibald, sir, what is the primary data source for these 3 series of temperature readings?? It would be interesting to review them.

  70. richard jenkins says:
    December 20, 2010 at 4:45 am
    Look at this data set, it goes back 11,000 years, until 50 years before now.
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/solanki2004-ssn.txt
    Where is the Dalton minimum?

    vukcevic says:
    December 20, 2010 at 3:33
    Formulae that give a close approximation of solar activity

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm

    and solar polar fields

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm

    One more time – Vuk, would you please label your graphs so they might convey your message to the rest of us?

  71. Leif says

    Quote

    Getting facts straight seem to be hard. Magnetic ropes in the solar wind have been recognized for decades, e.g.:

    Unquote

    Recognised and waffled about is one thing, hard data to show they link to Earth by Themis Imaging is something else. It would be interesting to know exactly what a magnetic rope is. Seems to be a euphemism for electric current. Bit like concrete etched magnetic lines of force, still looking for them.

  72. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 20, 2010 at 5:15 am

    “On the contrary, the official [sunspot] count has been a bit too low.”

    So like the instruments used to view the sun have gotten worse in recent years?

    That claim has zero credibility.

  73. Sense Seeker says:
    December 20, 2010 at 4:04 am

    Baa, a lag effect of the oceans is not a very plausible explanation (not to say humbug). Solar activity has at best been essentially flat since at least 1980, so the oceans should have caught up by now….

    ^^ Clearly a troll. Only someone trying to generate inflamed responses would be so casual as to not bother to define what constitutes “Solar Activity.” For all I know you’re referring to visible solar radiation like many CAGW believers do. If, however, you mean sunspots or F10.7, you’re wrong. But of course being a troll, the conflation of the two is probably what you’re going for.

  74. the_Butcher says:
    Don’t take it to the heart Vuk, you’re not the first or the last from your country to be called such names.

    Don’t know how to take that….but thanks for the support ..
    In no way comparison, but one of the great scientists of late 19-20th century Nikola Tesla was proclaimed as a charlatan too. No internet blogs in those days , so Edison used more direct method:
    But Edison soon had too much money invested into his DC system, and he tried his best to discredit Tesla by showing that AC was more dangerous than DC. Edison paid local children 25 cents for each stray dog they could bring him. Then he would hold press conferences and electrocute the dogs at public gatherings to frighten people.
    He claimed that DC could not kill, but in fact, it can.

  75. Fred from Canuckistan says:
    December 20, 2010 at 6:06 am
    “Shouldn’t we be asking how carbon dioxide causes this lack of sunspots?”
    ______

    Too much CO2 causes the Earth to heat AND cool –but eventually it will boil– and this causes changes in the atmosphere which, in turn, distort human perception much as too much Coors on a hot winter’s night panty raid will also doeth. Anyway that’s the Technical explanation being given to post grads at Hav’erd and, I believe, at every other Ivy Covered Institution for the Preservation of Witchcraft in the Western Hemisphere. It’s NOT that there are less sunspots, there are actually just as many as ever there were or will be, tis that we cannot see them. See? Humans have a very serious alergic reaction to CO2 and eventually go blind when the play with it too much. The Sun doesn’t change, well not at a rate to matter; it’s kind of a constant thing. It’s the CO2 that’s going to kill us. (SarcOff;-)

  76. >>Kampen
    >>So 2009 and 2010 should have been half a degree C colder than it
    >>was around 1970. But they aren’t. How come?

    Because, by the time you have finished rationalising and rebasing the temperatures, they always turn out to be warmer. Funny, that!

    .

  77. Dave Springer says:
    December 20, 2010 at 7:30 am
    So like the instruments used to view the sun have gotten worse in recent years?
    That claim has zero credibility.

    Counting of sunspots uses telescopes of same power as 150 years ago [on purpose]. In fact, the very same telescope Rudolf Wolf used in the 1850 is still being used and serves as a nice standard. Comparing the official count with everybody else [see Figures 23 and 24 of http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Seminar-14Sept.pdf shows the undercount very clearly.

  78. Grey Lensman says:
    December 20, 2010 at 7:25 am
    Recognised and waffled about is one thing, hard data to show they link to Earth by Themis Imaging is something else. It would be interesting to know exactly what a magnetic rope is. Seems to be a euphemism for electric current. Bit like concrete etched magnetic lines of force, still looking for them.
    The hard data has been there a long time. ‘Recognized’ means being accepted as fact and that acceptance is decades old. Here is more on flux ropes: http://www.vsp.ucar.edu/Heliophysics/pdf/MoldwinM_MagneticFluxRopesSpacePlasmas_07.pdf
    Electric currents must be maintained [by an emf] otherwise they short out. It has been known for decades that such emf is naturally provided by neutral plasma [conductors] moving [by gravity or thermal gradients] across magnetic fields provides the needed emf. The lamp on my old bicycle was produced by such a method [called a dynamo].

  79. Pascvaks says:
    December 20, 2010 at 5:39 am

    “During the Little Ice Age (and all the minima and the Big Ice Ages too) both poles experienced significant sea ice growth. Watch the sea ice global total for global cooling-warming indicators. It’s a kind’a global thermometer thingy-wingy.”

    It’s not quite that simple. Heat is transported from tropics to poles by ocean and atmospheric convective currents. Those convective currents can change for reasons largely not understood. If the transport slows for any reason you can get rising temperatures in the tropics and falling temperatures at the poles. The opposite can happen as well if the convective for any reason increase – falling temps in the tropics and rising temps at the poles. To complicate things even more the northern and southern hemispheres have convective currents largely independent of each other so you can get an increase in one hemisphere and a decrease in the other at the same time. Making matters even more complicated is the Atlantic and Pacific have some degree of independence from each other so they aren’t always in sync with each other. Complicating things even more is that the vast majority of the ocean (90%) of it is at a nearly constant 3C and where only a shallow surface layer (first few hundred meters) gets warmer than that. The mixing rate between warm shallow surface and frigid depths, can also change due to changes in trade wind patterns and in the great conveyor belt which transports warm surface water towards the poles where it cools below 3C and sinks to the bottom and where that warm surface water is replaced by cold water flowing along the bottom from polar region to tropical oceans. Complicating things even more are changing gyre currents which are huge eddies which loop off from the main conveyor belt circuit.

    The global ocean has over 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere and it’s average temperature from top to bottom is scary-cold at 4C which is scary because any change that increases the mix rate between surface and deep waters will make the planet very very cold. The climate is controlled by the global ocean. Weather is controlled by the atmosphere. The sun heats the ocean and the ocean heats the air.

    Four degrees C is the average surface temperature of the globe when averaged across both glacial and interglacial epochs of the current ice age. It can be nothing else as over periods of hundreds of thousands of years even the slow mixing rate of shallow and deep ocean waters will average it out and the average air temperature at the surface must eventually follow the temperature of the ocean since the atmosphere has such a tiny thermal mass compared to the ocean.

  80. “Global temps are still high by all five metrics (NOAA, UAH, RSS, GISS, and HADCRUT).”

    When are we going to get over the fact that “global average temperature” has no relevance to anything.

  81. Here is a comment I have sent to real climate re cold weather and global warming. Awaiting moderation so it may never see the light of day. This seems the closet fit on your topics. If it passes your moderation please feel free to add it.
    Gilles/Gavin comments
    “It’s difficult for me to understand how one can evaluate the consequences of a global warming, if the local changes are so much unknown. The global consequences are just the sum of local consequences – if they are so many unknown in the local responses of winters, rains, etc.. how can one evaluate any sensible figure ? and more generally, if the LOCAL variance is higher than the long term (which can be true even if the GLOBAL one is not), how can it affect significantly the all day life of people living in some place ?
    [Response: It's difficult for me to understand how one can evaluate the consequences of the Earth's passage around the sun, if the local changes are so much unknown. The global consequences are just the sum of local consequences - if they are so many unknown in the local responses of seasons, rains, etc.. how can one evaluate any sensible figure ? and more generally, if the LOCAL variance is higher than the seasonal cycle (which can be true even if the GLOBAL one is not), how can it affect significantly the all day life of people living in some place? Indeed, it is truly a mystery. - gavin]”
    I love comment 1 and the response as both are so true.
    Making a living in a real world on energy policy and project implementation I have learnt that it is essential that we learn to manage uncertainty. In supporting and developing some of the first initiatives responding to the global warming risk in the early ’90s it was good for me to make sensible and concrete progress on the basis of common objectives. But then the predictions of catastrophe got more extreme, and the responses were built on an assumption of certainty. Impacts were extrapolated to fantastical levels (Maldives, polar bears and the rest – both seem to be thriving on the evidence) without any reference to probability or to offsetting benefits. The economics of global warming mitigation have become ridiculous – as the nonsensical uneconomic (wasted resources of the earth and the human race, goddammit) investment in windpower and solar demonstrate.
    Mr Cook wonders why the scientists have not explained themselves well. Easy – scare mongering wins politicians but loses the credibility of professionals, and the general public. The CO2 modelling has been around long enough for people to test the predictions – compared with the solar modellers (Corbyn, Sharp) the CO2 modellers are losing. Corbyn and Sharp are beating the professional weather and climate forecasters this year. My previous employer used Corbyn from 1994 because he was even then by some way the most accurate in the medium to long term – and the long term weather becomes the climate.
    “Global warming means cold winters and more Antarctic ice” sounds a facile and stupid excuse for failed models in that context even if you believe it to be the truth. If you have a load of missing energy then your model is wrong and you cannot blame sea ice or some other unproven hypothesis. The solar guys acknowledge uncertainty, while uncertainty is a barely disclosed caveat in the CO2 world, to be used as an excuse if necessary.
    Oddly, I do not give a fig who is right scientifically – but I want to respond on behalf of clients as to the best (economic, efficient, sustainable in the true sense) way to meet the energy needs of customers – that is, everyone. Working in developing countries as well, I have to recognise that wind and solar are not substitutes for economic energy to deliver economic and social welfare, replacing forests and kerosene as fuel sources.
    Where risks are overstated on both impact and probability, you have to ignore them. You follow the best, most accurate predictions, not the politically correct ones. When people in many countries perceive cooling (starting in my case with cold winters in Southern Africa from 2007, and now in Latin America and Central America where people’s perception is mirrored in satellite models – I will not mention the more obvious Northern Hemisphere worries of a cold population paying higher than ever energy bills) they do not like being told it is their fault and due to global warming. Politicians outside the EU and the US are paying lip service to global warming while planning energy policies that increasingly ignore the warming risk – especially in the developing world and the “nearly developed” world.
    The vitriol and points scoring on both sides of this debate are a waste of time. The skeptics have the merit of not trying to prove anything, and their case that the evidence (not the models or the science so much) is poor is manifestly correct: diminishing correlation between CO2 and global temperature, measured sea level rises insignificant, failed predictions from the CO2 side – even if these were silly – Messrs Parker, Viner and Monbiot come to mind.
    My non-scientific reading of the current situation is: the CO2 forcing and economic impacts need re-thinking and re-modelling to match evidence since 1995; everyone needs to accept that the solar people are winning on predictions, and to work out why –
    is CO2 forcing overstated and solar forcing understated?;
    as the answer is uncertain because the science is uncertain, policy makers and professionals and businesses need to come up with a better policy framework (and not the damaging precautionary principle – this is about risk management, not capitulation)- and that means suspending the UN and EU policy rules for now while we learn a bit more;
    and what if nothing substantive is really changing at all, and this is all just weather – we can then save a load of taxpayers’ money on unnecessary modelling and research!
    By the way, on the specific point of cold weather, I remember the effect of Greenland highs in 78/9 and December 81. I also remember 62/3 but was just too young to note where the Greenland high was. But clearly Greenland highs and late Hudson Bay icing go together, and have pleasingly not changed over my lifetime. That is good news – less is more.

  82. Sense Seeker says:
    December 20, 2010 at 4:04 am

    “Also, since 1980 temperature has gone up by about 0.5 degrees Celsius, you’d need a very impressive lag effect to explain that, given flat solar activity.”

    The numbers are worthless because the temperature record continues to comprise only averages, not actual observations. If all the heating occurred at night, it could very easily be the result of UHI. But no one knows because meteorologists and climate scientists have all sworn to use numbers that are an average of a daytime and a nighttime temperature for each day. If pro-AGW folk were serious, they would insist that all funding for AGW research should be channeled into a program that produces temperature measurements that are acceptable to all parties in the debate. In other words, put the money where the science is, namely, in its infancy.

  83. @Pascvaks (continued)

    The global climate, when viewed over hundreds of millions of years has winters and summers where the winters (ice ages) persist for millions of years and the summers persist for tens of millions of years. Where we are at right now is a winter period. The earth has been in an ice for the past 3 million years. More immediately speaking we are in a brief thaw. For people in the north where I’m from there’s something commonly referred to as “The January Thaw” which, when it happens, is a brief period of a week or two where daytime temperatures rise well above freezing and snow cover might completely melt. It’s almost like a false spring but everyone knows that January is the dead of winter and the thaw won’t last long. That’s what the current interglacial period (the past 10,000 years) is like – a brief thaw in the dead of global winter. The bad part of that is 10,000 years is the average length of the thaws so statistically speaking we should expect global winter to return real soon now. It would be the ultimate in lucky happenstance if non-condensing anthropogenic greenhouse gases were enough to stop or even significantly extend the interglacial period but I doubt it will be anywhere near enough to be more than a tiny blip of extra surface warmth that might persist for a few centuries until we run out of CO2 locked up in fossil fuel reserves – when that happens it will back to business as usual for global climate if it is indeed not business as usual even today.

  84. If we are entering into a period similar to the Dalton, I propose it be named the Hanson Minimum, which is also what I expect to hear from the man if this does come to pass.

  85. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 20, 2010 at 7:46 am

    The information about Wolf’s telescope is very interesting. However, the telescope alone does not tell us what standards are being applied today or if they have changed over the years. Has someone had the good sense to publish the standards and the history of their use?

  86. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 20, 2010 at 5:15 am

    Pops says:
    December 20, 2010 at 12:43 am
    The sun has probably been spotless on several occasions recently but those doing the counting have been using a large magnifying glass to count every pixel in a desperate attempt to pump-up the numbers.

    On the contrary, the official count has been a bit too low. At any rate, cycle 24 is going to be low as predicted back in 2004 [by me] and 2003 [Schatten]. The cosmic ray count from Oulu is likely too high [it is difficult to maintain long-term stability]. Most other stations show that the current minimum has been on par with the minimum in 1965.

    Hide the decline,

    No study showing global temps with RURAL data only, and don`t say there are are not enough rural stations, global temps up to 1990 will do.

    No study on sunspots using exactly the same type as the telescopes of the 17th century, like these, 1609 and 1668.

    Not one of these,

    Studies show that by the end of the 20th century the Sun’s activity may have been the highest in more than 8,000 years, with the Sun’s magnetic field almost doubling in the past century.

  87. “Pascvaks says:
    December 20, 2010 at 5:39 am

    During the Little Ice Age (and all the minima and the Big Ice Ages too) both poles experienced significant sea ice growth. Watch the sea ice global total for global cooling-warming indicators. It’s a kind’a global thermometer thingy-wingy. Atmospheric temperature is OK for any one ‘where’ at any one ‘time’ or from any one year to another year, but you don’t want to write home about it. Watch the sea ice. Watch the glaciers.

    PS: In today’s much abused and overpopulated world we’ve lost touch with a number of realities. One very important one is that you never trust a politician any farther than you can throw them. (I don’t think I can say that too often.)”

    As an “amateur watcher” here I could believe that, but to get to a state of significant sea ice growth we need a “tipping point” where the Globe stands still before significant cooling takes place. We may be at that stage or not as the case may be, but it is significant that there has been no atsmospheric warming now for 15 years (whatever happens to 2010). The N/S sea ice added together is within normal variation and more significantly sea levels are now declining http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ (off just now). Per the Argo site there has been barely any heating of the oceans since early 1960s “For the upper 700m, the increase in heat content was 16 x 1022 J since 1961. This is consistent with the comparison by Roemmich and Gilson (2009) of Argo data with the global temperature time-series of Levitus et al (2005), finding a warming of the 0 – 2000 m ocean by 0.06°C since the (pre-XBT) early 1960’s.” There has been suggestions that recent information is not avaliable from ARGO because of recent cooling. This is still to be verified. So despite a relentless upwards trend of CO2 now at 390ppm temperature rise has stalled and sea ice is not diminishing. Ocean temperatures are flat more or less and sea levels are falling. Are we now at a “tipping point” where the Global heat budget may start to fall? Looking at AMSU-R near surface is more or less like last year but surface is 0.24C below last year.

  88. Thank you Anthony & WUWT team. I love the purely solar posts and especially ones about the solar cycle (11 year variety) history, its current behavior and projections.

    The urge to take the ~11 year solar cycle activity as a direct proxy for climate variation is almost irresistible. I recommend resisting that temptation. For me, any perceived correlation between the ~11 year solar cycle and climate variation has produced interesting hypotheses which as yet have not been shown to be widely supported by theory with associated verifying observations. I am not being negative about the exciting possibilities, yet do not wish to over-reach into the land where it is “turtles all the way down”.

    Happy Holidays.

    John

  89. Thermodynamics states that all energetic systems must lose energy and eventually become equal to cosmic noise [a little above absolute zero].

    EUV, Infrared, etc., must pass through 10.7 cm Flux on the way to cosmic noise. Therefore, measuring and using 10.7 cm Flux [about the same frequency as your microwave oven] as a proxy for “all energy from the Sun reaching the Earth’s surface” is a reasonable assumption.

    My simple Sun/Earth model duplicated the temperature as researched by Loehle from 1620 until ~2000 {Loehle data end point}. During ‘normal’ Sunspot/Flux years, the Earth loses then gains 0.1 C. Since the Flux has gone “quiet (if you call quiet very near its lowest value of ~67)”, this started in 2005. Now we are losing ~0.1C/2 years. This will continue until we lose 2C or the Flux hits ~+250 and we start heating again. A 2C lower Earth temperature can be maintained by a Flux of 67 [energy in/energy out].

    Solar physicists have no explanation for the variability of the Sun. According to them the Maunder/Dalton minimums are impossible [as caused by the Sun].

    It appears that the oceans have a energy storage time of ~0.1C/2.5 years at a Flux input of ~67. This does not appears to be an exponential decline, but more a straight line relationship. It appears to be strongly influenced by EUV puffing up the troposphere and the stratosphere. Puffed up more insulation, deflated, less insulation.

    The GISS UHI driven data will not be able to “hide” the cooling in the future [next 2 years, or beyond]. Watch their “Global Temperatures” plummet.

    Additional information freely available

    jlurtz@basicisp.net

    Dr. Lurtz

  90. Theo Goodwin says:
    December 20, 2010 at 8:14 am
    The information about Wolf’s telescope is very interesting. However, the telescope alone does not tell us what standards are being applied today or if they have changed over the years. Has someone had the good sense to publish the standards and the history of their use?
    The standards and methods have been extensively documented over time starting with Rudolf Wolf himself 150 years ago. Observers try VERY hard to keep the standard intact [not always successful]. The observers using the original telescope have been using it [the same way] the past 50 years.

    Robuk says:
    December 20, 2010 at 8:17 am
    The 17th century technology is not the issue. We have good data and even the original telescopes [still in use] since the 1850s.
    Studies show that by the end of the 20th century the Sun’s activity may have been the highest in more than 8,000 years, with the Sun’s magnetic field almost doubling in the past century.
    Recent studies suggest that this is not the case. E.g. there is now general agreement that the Sun’s magnetic field today is what it was a century ago, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf

  91. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 20, 2010 at 7:46 am

    Dave Springer says:
    December 20, 2010 at 7:30 am
    So like the instruments used to view the sun have gotten worse in recent years?
    That claim has zero credibility.
    Counting of sunspots uses telescopes of same power as 150 years ago [on purpose]. In fact, the very same telescope Rudolf Wolf used in the 1850 is still being used and serves as a nice standard.

    Show me the telescope, who is using it and where.

    Apples with apples,

  92. “Given that solar activity has been low in recent years and knowing that this gives a cooling effect, but that high average global temperatures have nonetheless been observed (with each subsequent decade being warmer than the previous for the past several decades), can we conclude that carbon-induced global warming has so far been stronger than the cooling effect of low solar activity?”

    No. You’d need to eliminate other factors in that argument. We can conclude that if solar activity has been low, there is no time-lag, and all other factors are eliminated, then any genuine warming must be carbon-induced. The points of contention there are mainly the elimination of other factors, and the reliability of measurements.

    “And assuming that solar activity has inadequately been accounted for in climate models, does this imply that the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on world average temperature may have been underestimated?”

    No, the reverse.

  93. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 20, 2010 at 7:46 am

    …Counting of sunspots uses telescopes of same power as 150 years ago [on purpose]…

    I would note that the Dalton minimum was 200 years ago, and the maunder was 300-350 years ago. It’s possible then by your reasoning here (I’m trying not to attribute stance, I realize you’re only making an argument), that we’re still over-counting w.r.t. those eras, correct?

  94. I’m amazed by people with mad graphing skillz all over the place here.

    Could someone reading this possibly produce a youtube video showing a picture of the sun getting bluer when sunspots are low and redder when sunspots are high then alongside it show a picture of the earth (not to scale of course) where it turns bluer as global temperature falls and redder as it rises? To sex it up a little put digital counters on the screen labeled year, sunspots, and global average temperature.

    They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I say Youtube videos that go viral are worth a thousand pictures.

  95. Perhaps this low solar activity will cause Mount Tambora to erupt again, as it did in late 1815 (largest eruption in over a 1000 years), which lead to the “year without a summer”.

  96. Re Dave Springer says:
    December 20, 2010 at 7:54 am
    “The global ocean has over 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere and it’s average temperature from top to bottom is scary-cold at 4C which is scary because any change that increases the mix rate between surface and deep waters will make the planet very very cold. The climate is controlled by the global ocean. Weather is controlled by the atmosphere. The sun heats the ocean and the ocean heats the air. ”

    Logical and easy to follow post Dave, I would only change one sentance, the last one to; The sun’s SWR heats the ocean and the ocean heats the air.

  97. vukcevic says:
    December 20, 2010 at 7:14 am
    Are those “Magnetic Ropes” of the Indian levitating Ropes’ kind?
    Though, in this case, the “trick” it’s an invisible string of electricity :-)

  98. Keep a focus on the big picture. Earth is in an ice age interglacial WARMING period. Interglacial get a sun tan play golf drink fine wine period. Glaciers are going to keep right on receding and growing according to the climate oscillates fixed to earthbound systems, solar cycles, and other catastrophic periodic and non-periodic events, such as asteroid strikes and volcanism. Why was it was warmest just after the last icing event. What causes the glaciations to recede for a short period of 10,000 to 20,000 years? Enlighten me. Is it CO2? Methane?, Coal power? Too many people? Not enough green appliances?

    Do we know why we have interglacial warming? We see they happen at a somewhat regular period. Will we see a continuation of this period of ice ages? Do we want more sea ice? I don’t think so. We want palm trees in Siberia, sunny warm beeches in Greenland, condos on golf course in Antarctica. Right?

  99. Ref – Dave Springer says:
    December 20, 2010 at 7:54 am
    & – Dave Springer says:
    December 20, 2010 at 8:12 am
    & – John Peter says:
    December 20, 2010 at 8:21 am

    Thanks for your feedback. Sometimes I get slap happy and go for the lowest common denominator. Really do appreciate both of you taking the time to address my comment. If people lived for 100K years climate would probably be more important than it has been for the past 10K, and we’d probably have a better idea about how it works. Mersey Buckets! (Really)

    PS: I still think the old KISS principle of “keeping it simple” has merit and I’ll put my neck out on the limb and say I think we’re already on the way down the far side of the old temperature mountain for this interglacial. Best to both of you.

  100. “For cold winters to provide positive feedback, snow cover has to survive from one winter to the next so that snow’s higher albedo relative to bare rock will reflect sunlight into space, causing cooler summers.”

    Well, snow cover in NOT surviving the spring/summer season:

    http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=5

    http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=8

    And the cold winter of 2009/2010 was obviously caused by a extreme negative Arctic Oscillation, that caused cold wether in continental USA and Eurasia , but ALSO record warmth in Greenland, Canada, Eastern Siberia and the Arctic Ocean:

    “Winter Temperatures and the Arctic Oscillation”

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=42260

  101. Leif says

    Quote

    The hard data has been there a long time. ‘Recognized’ means being accepted as fact and that acceptance is decades old.

    Unquote

    You mean just like global warming science, its settled?

  102. “The Year Without a Summer, in 1816, also occurred during the Dalton Minimum.”

    I think we should be cautious about a statement like this that seems to imply that “The Year Without a Summer” was caused by the sunspot minimum rather than the eruption of Tambora in 1815. We can be guilty of the same nonsense as the CAGW alarmists.

  103. JohnM says:
    December 20, 2010 at 8:07 am

    It is not about power but about fear, fear of the court we could realize that the “King is naked”. History shows that the same fear appeared every time a commoner usurped a throne. They don’t want their “pedigree” to be revealed.

  104. Lately, I’ve been thinking… wouldn’t it be … interesting… if we continue to cool, and suddenly we are urged to use *more* fossil fuel to offset the drastic cooling….. and *it doesn’t work* because CO2 was never much of a driver in the first place? As we desperately burn everything we can get our hands on, but the Sun’s lack of sunspots is relentless and our climate is inexorably chilled?

    (fighting a sudden urge to buy a wood burning stove)

    Joanie

  105. Sean Peake says:
    December 20, 2010 at 8:13 am
    If we are entering into a period similar to the Dalton, I propose it be named the Hanson Minimum
    ———————————————————————————

    “The Hanson Minimum”….It has a nice ring to it….

  106. E.M.Smith says:
    December 20, 2010 at 2:31 am

    I think Anthony needs to make a “Sun Page” rather like the “ice page” and start gathering a bunch of solar graphs and status pages in it.

    Well, a “Sun Page” in addition to the “Ice Page” and “Sea Page” would be nicer. But until then, this is where I go:

    SOHO Space Weather

    OK S.

  107. Patrick Davis says:
    December 20, 2010 at 3:37 am
    That is the good side of this “climate disruption”: A cooler summer with less or no bugs and no risks of intestinal infections.

  108. David, UK says:
    December 20, 2010 at 1:54 am

    “This is showing no signs of stopping, despite the complete failure of alarmists to prove their corrupt hypothesis. If anything, the more evidence that mounts against them (i.e. that the recent warming is part of a natural cycle, and is nothing remotely unusual), the more totalitarian they become.

    So again, I say bring on the cold.”

    I’m essentially of the same mind. I’ll add that destroying this theory should put other costly, ineffective and downright deadly environmental crusades under a microscope and, most importantly, encourage a revival of skepticism among the younger generations that will hopefully generalize well to other topics – I may be too optimistic on that happening though.

    Ideally, and I speak as a former democrat, it’ll smack these kids with a dose of reality and get them to consider libertarian/conservative solutions and philosophies in a rational manner rather than dismissing them as dumb anti-science racist rednecks – such prejudices are hard to kill though.

  109. Jeff Alberts says:
    When are we going to get over the fact that “global average temperature” has no relevance to anything. Certainly not to the reality of weather that any individual is experiencing at any given point in time. In stead of spending 4 hours covering plants here in central FL to keep them from freezing is there anyone of sound mind that would suggest I simply “believe” that the 1.6c increase (if it’s real – see below) in “global average temperature” over the past 100+ years is going to “protect” them?

    And as Ian W said at 5:55 am
    Temperature does not equal heat content. ….(it is) the incorrect metric. ….the ‘green house gas’ theory is that ‘heat’ is trapped in the atmosphere. So scientists should stop measuring temperature and doing temperature comparisons ! They are meaningless. Which is very well said AND has been being said here for years! After all, what is “weather” but the movement of greater and lesser amounts of heat vertically and horizontally? This, of course, begs the question where are the hourly/daily measurements of the total heat content of the global atmosphere so that we can compare them to the same measurements for say – 1860? or 1675? 0r 1975?
    Oh darn…. what did we do with those records?? Santa, do you have those records? Oh right! We don’t need no sinking records! We’ve got tree rings!

  110. Frosty:

    Thank you very much for the link you provided – http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.pdf

    A fascinating look at extreme weather events for two millenia. I am impressed by how many floods, freezes etc are accompanied by a comment like “no-one had ever seen such an extreme event in their entire lives”. I guess there is nothing new under the sun!

    Malcolm

  111. This is the “Progressive Minimum”…as temperatures progressively decrease to reach a minimum at about 2030-40, then the Sun King will be back again.

  112. < December 20, 2010 at 8:13 am
    < If we are entering into a period similar to the Dalton, I propose it be named
    < the Hanson Minimum.

    Hansen, not Hanson, I presume?

  113. Joanie says:
    December 20, 2010 at 9:25 am

    ” and *it doesn’t work* because CO2 was never much of a driver in the first place?”

    Soot would work. That was the plan we the last time the we thought we might be sliding into an ice age.

  114. Grey Lensman says:
    December 20, 2010 at 9:23 am
    You mean just like global warming science, its settled?
    As settled as the Earth is round. Science is never settled. Some facts are accepted by most scientists as being true [as far as we know], which means that there is no debate currently going on on the issue.

  115. Jeff Alberts says:
    December 20, 2010 at 7:58 am (Edit)

    “Global temps are still high by all five metrics (NOAA, UAH, RSS, GISS, and HADCRUT).”

    When are we going to get over the fact that “global average temperature” has no relevance to anything.

    #############

    yes, if we banish the idea of a global average we can get rid of the notion that the sunspot cycle correlates to anything. we can get also get rid of the idea that there was a LIA. /sarc off

  116. Kermit says:
    December 20, 2010 at 9:24 am
    “….it seems to imply “The Year Without a Summer” was caused by the sunspot minimum rather than the eruption of Tambora in 1815. We can be guilty of the same nonsense as the CAGW alarmists.”

    Spot On, Kermit!

  117. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 20, 2010 at 8:35 am

    Has no one published a book or article on Wolf, his telescope, and his successors at the telescope? Seems to me it would be quite an opportunity for a youngish historian of science.

  118. Sense Seeker says:
    December 20, 2010 at 3:10 am

    Caution, SS, just down the road from the syllogism lies the faulty dilemma.

  119. @tallbloke

    “Enhanced co2 Greenhouse conjecture is dead in the water, because Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ isn’t hiding in the system, it is the figment of a failed model. There is no missing heat, we will have to make do with what heat the oceans are still retaining.”

    Hard to hide much heat in the ocean with good sea level measurement. Just a matter of splitting it between thermal expansion and change in mass. IIRC it’s presumed to be about half thermal and on the rise 2-3mm/year which is not at all outside the bounds of natural rate of change. If we start cooling off for real rate of sea level rise will decrease accordingly. It may go negative and stay negative for thousands of years as the current interglacial winds to a cold finish and glaciers build to historical maximum extent. That won’t be good. If we think fossil fuel supply is a problem now just think how bad it will be when it’s winter all the time north of the 40th parallel. Heating fuel use will go through the roof.

  120. Jeremy says:
    December 20, 2010 at 8:41 am
    I would note that the Dalton minimum was 200 years ago, and the maunder was 300-350 years ago. It’s possible then by your reasoning here (I’m trying not to attribute stance, I realize you’re only making an argument), that we’re still over-counting w.r.t. those eras, correct?
    We don’t really know what the count was back then. We have somewhat reasonable numbers back to ~1750, but are not quite sure what the calibration is. For the Dalton minimum there is very little good data, as there were but few observations. Starting in 1945 the sunspot number is overcounted [not because of better telescopes as the same telescope that Wolf used in the 1850s was used] but because people tried to ‘improve’ the sunspot number by counting bigger spots several times over [a single large spot was counted as 5 spots]. The past 1o years, the official counters in Brussels have been on the low side [undercounting]. They are away of this, but have not fessed up to it yet. ["it is under investigation, and we want to be cautious and thorough, etc"]

  121. Sense Seeker
    Baa, a lag effect of the oceans is not a very plausible explanation….

    Scientists often go “Bah.” Only sheep go “Baa.” 8 > )

  122. Kermit says:
    December 20, 2010 at 9:24 am

    “The Year Without a Summer, in 1816, also occurred during the Dalton Minimum.”

    I think we should be cautious about a statement like this that seems to imply that “The Year Without a Summer” was caused by the sunspot minimum rather than the eruption of Tambora in 1815. We can be guilty of the same nonsense as the CAGW alarmists.

    The statement is one of correlation, and only implies a connection, not specific causation. Very likely, the “Year without a Summer” was caused by both the Tambora eruption and the fact that it occurred during the Dalton Minimum. It isn’t possible for Skeptics/Climate Realists to be guilty of the same nonsense as the Alarmists. Not without a cranioproctological inversion, that is.

  123. Wonderful timing!

    In my muddle-headed way I was wondering about this just last night. “Wait, ” I thought, “haven’t there been an annoyingly small number of sun spots recently? Could that have a connection to my house being GD freezing?!”

    Now, correlation is not causation, but you’ve put together a lot of data here. Very nice.

  124. Steven Mosher says:
    December 20, 2010 at 10:29 am
    Jeff Alberts says:
    December 20, 2010 at 7:58 am (Edit)

    “yes, if we banish the idea of a global average we can get rid of the notion that the sunspot cycle correlates to anything. we can get also get rid of the idea that there was a LIA. /sarc off”

    Aren’t these claims true by definition? That is; what you mean by “the LIA” is a global phenomenon. But what reasons are there for insisting that it be a global phenomenon? After all, climate science is a branch of natural history, not a branch of physics. You might benefit from the use of physical theory along the way, but when climate science is complete it will be about the natural history of climate on Earth, just as someday the final word on the Giant Sequoia will be about the history of that plant on Earth. Claiming that there is this abstraction called “global temperature” seems very much like claiming that there is a “global Giant Sequoia.” Perhaps, along the way, such postulates are needed but they will not be part of the final account.

  125. “Sense Seeker says:
    December 20, 2010 at 3:10 am

    And assuming that solar activity has inadequately been accounted for in climate models, does this imply that the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on world average temperature may have been underestimated?”

    Since the AGW alarmists have savaged the reputations of anyone who maintains that the sun has an influence on weather, that’s an entirely hypothetical question. The alarmists would first have to acknowledge that they were wrong on a particular issue, and that’s something they never, ever, ever do.

  126. Theo Goodwin says:
    December 20, 2010 at 10:41 am
    Has no one published a book or article on Wolf, his telescope, and his successors at the telescope? Seems to me it would be quite an opportunity for a youngish historian of science.
    I’m working on an article on this.
    Some links to my previous studies [that have some overlap] of this:

    http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202010%20SH53B-03.pdf

    http://www.leif.org/research/Eddy-Symp-Poster-1.pdf

    http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Seminar-14Sept.pdf

    http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf

    http://www.leif.org/research/SOHO23.pdf

    http://www.leif.org/research/Historical%20Solar%20Cycle%20Context.pdf

    http://www.leif.org/research/SPD-2009.pdf

    http://www.leif.org/research/Napa%20Solar%20Cycle%2024.pdf

    http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Spring%202008%20SP23A-07.pdf

    http://www.leif.org/research/SH13A-1109-F2007.pdf

    http://www.leif.org/research/De%20maculis%20in%20Sole%20observatis.pdf

    As you can see, I have worked on this for some years now, and you can follow the progress. At the present time, the picture is becoming clear and I believe that a coherent story can be told. Any changes to the ‘sacred’ historical record are bound to be met with stiff resistance because of the impact that such ‘revisionism’ might have on people’s pet theories and ingrained dogmas.

  127. “It isn’t possible for Skeptics/Climate Realists to be guilty of the same nonsense as the Alarmists.”

    Yes, when you are on the “right” side of the issue, you can say just whatever sounds good and supportive.

  128. No, no, no, fellas, it’ll be the Eddy Minimum. His love of words eddyfied the world’s men and women.
    ============

  129. Sense Seeker says:
    December 20, 2010 at 4:04 am
    Baa, a lag effect of the oceans is not a very plausible explanation (not to say humbug). Solar activity has at best been essentially flat since at least 1980, so the oceans should have caught up by now. You can see that the ’1970s cooling period’ followed a period of low solar activity with a lag time of 10 years at the very most.

    Also, since 1980 temperature has gone up by about 0.5 degrees Celsius, you’d need a very impressive lag effect to explain that, given flat solar activity.

    There’s gotta be something else that explains this temperature pattern. (And the rest of the world knows what it is. You know it makes sense.)
    ______

    Sense Seeker, you are asking some very valid questions, but don’t expect to get a sympathetic ear here. To follow up on those:

    1) Suppose we are going in to a Dalton (or even Maunder) type of solar minimum, which looks increasingly likely– how much colder would we be without the additional 40% or so CO2 we added to the troposphere since these last solar minimums?

    2) A period of cooling related to a quiet sun (or even a flat-line) does not in any way disprove or even create a serious problem for the science behind the longer term effects of CO2. I am still trying to understand how certain AGW skeptics think that fluctuations is solar cycles creates a problem for the science behind the greenhouse effects of CO2? They are not mutually exclusive.

    Unfortunately, we don’t have a second earth that we could lower the CO2 back to 280 ppm (and reduce methane back to 1800’s levels as well) and see how the current quiet sun affects it.

    Having said all this however, I do feel that current GCM’s have not fully taken into account some of the potential secondary effects of solar cycles, looking beyond simple TSI, and looked at the relationship between GCR’s, high energy UV, cloud cover etc., as these effects are just now becoming better known. These may prove that indeed, solar cycles play a greater role in climate than fully realized such that even though solar changes may still not dominate over the 40% increase in anthropogenic CO2 we’ve seen.

  130. vukcevic says:
    December 20, 2010 at 9:14 am
    Frosty says:
    December 20, 2010 at 4:46 am
    ……………..
    Useful reference list, it does confirm that the Dalton min ( 1800-1830) was not to bad. Number of winters you listed can be easily identified in :

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-D.htm

    Interestingly, the warmings and coolings are mainly spring/summer, contrary to AGW theory.

  131. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 20, 2010 at 11:11 am
    “Any changes to the ‘sacred’ historical record are bound to be met with stiff resistance because of the impact that such ‘revisionism’ might have on people’s pet theories and ingrained dogmas.”
    ————

    On the other hand, the ongoing sub-zero temperatures along the English Channel in Devon might have an even greater impact on people’s pet theories and ingrained dogmas, Leif! I’d hate to have my boat tied to a climatology department in the UK right now….

  132. @Murray Duffin

    Dalton minimum was between 1790 -1830 so the figures I linked to are up to 1950.

    The series of reconstructed 10-yr averaged sunspot numbers with their 68% uncertainty.
    Years are given BP (before present), i.e. the calendar AD year, Yad, is related to the
    BP year, Ybp, as Yc=1950-Ybp.
    The tabulated years correspond to centers of the corresponding 10-year intervals.
    Negative values are artifacts and are consistent with zero within the error limits.

    So the figure for 55 is 1950
    235 to 285 are dalton minimum?

  133. Oh, man, just when I thought all the “minimum” talk was over… Let’s go back to making cracks on Al Gore and polar bears. I don’t want to hear about (gulp) persistent solar minimums. We’ve had a few spots, haven’t we? Every day we’ve a spot or two to look at. Isn’t that enough? So what if it’s taking a day or so for the spots to come back around. Go back to talking about the earth warming up. That’s what I like to hear about. Warming. Warming is better.

    I guess I can go over to some climate change sites and warm up. All this “minimum” talk is giving me a chill…

  134. Theo Goodwin.

    You miss the point. you will note the following inconsistency in some skeptical arguments.

    When the topic is the increase in the “global average” you will find people:
    1. Claiming that it doesnt exist
    2. Claiming that there are too few thermometers to measure it
    3. Claiming that the thermometers lack the accuracy to determine the number
    4. Claiming that there are huge amounts of bias in that number

    When the topic is correlation of temperature with Sun spots you will find

    1. Nobody claiming the global average doesnt make sense
    2. Nobody claiming there are two few thermometers
    3. Nobody complaining about the accuracy
    4. Nobody talking about bias.

    When the Topic is the LIA ( whatever that is) you will also find that the skepticism
    about the temperature record flies out the window.

    When the Topic is the MWP ( whatever that is) you will also find selective skepticism. lack of Scepticism about proxies used to establish a LIA suddedly becomes skepticism about proxies used to estimate a lower MWP.

    As for the definition of “global average” I think many people are mislead by the idea that it is a physical thing. It’s not. It’s operational.

    When I tell you that the gloabl average 100 years from now will be 2C warmer (+-) I am telling you that if you take the average temperature where you stand today, and you take the same average 100 years from now in the same place the best estimate of the temperature difference will be 2C. To be sure some places wil be higher other will be lower, but if you want to minimize your error of estimation you will pick 2C. If you pick -2C your total error will be bigger, if you pick 0c it will be bigger. That is what is meant by the “global” average. Its the number you would pick to minimize the error in predicting the temperature at N random locations

  135. Mosher: “yes, if we banish the idea of a global average …”

    Good idea. The idea of a global average temperature is as dumb as a “global average elevation”. If someone told you the GAE was 250m it wouldn’t help you if you are trekking in the himilayas.

    Whay not temperature lines graded on whether the change in temperature was a fantasy concocted by hansen (quick — make the 1930s cooler so it aappears the 90s were warmer) or contaminated by UHI ( 7 – 9C in some cities we have discovered recently).

    Quit INFILLING. Show the actual point on a map. Compare the modern 1000 point map to the older maps with 6000 points. Maybe color code it with little marks that say: fictional, really fictional, LOL fictional.

  136. Skeptics:

    Get your arguments straight. Low climate sensitivity means small lags between forcing and response (Lindzen & Giannitsis, 1998). If you think the response to doubled CO2 will be small, but you think that solar forcing is somehow larger than CO2 forcing (some kind of cosmic ray effect, or whatever) then the prediction is that a period of low solar forcing in 2008-2012 would yield a period of globally cool temperatures in the years 2010-2014. If the effective heat capacity were large enough to delay the response by 20 years, the result would be very small variability over the solar cycle (since it’s shorter than 20 years!).

  137. Steven Mosher says:
    December 20, 2010 at 12:24 pm
    ………………
    I have no idea how global grids are organised, what weighting are given, and how the temperatures are averaged over what surface or volume, but I can firmly state that whatever is calculated is unlikely to be either accurate or much meaningful on the global scale.
    Only measure that would have meaning is the global heat content, but I would suspect that would be even more difficult to calculate.
    To make sense, within reason, is a reasonable size area average temperatures; even so they oscillate widely in subsequent years seasons. In the last 30 years it is that the winters CE temperatures have been least consistent, while the autumn temperatures have been pretty steady and relatively high.
    See last block ‘1950-2010’ in http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-D.htm

  138. Theodore Landscheidt predicted a Grand Solar Minimum starting in 1990 bottoming out in 2030 and ending by 2070. This isn’t guess work or hyperbole. This is very predictable planetary mechanics controlling the weather on the Sun, which in turn controls our weather here. It is well underway as demonstrated by the decade of recent cooling.

    We are on course for brutally cold winters, getting worse and worse by the year. We had better prepare for fuel shortages, power interruptions, crop failures, and famines. Great Britian is only beginning to get a taste of things to come for the entire Northern Hemisphere.

    Climate change is , indeed, on the way. Please, do not be fooled by the global warming baloney of Al Gore, the UN IPCC, Dr. James “Thumbs On The Temperature Scale” Hansen, and the cadre of scientists feeding at the public trough of grant money.

    The next few decades are going to be killers, and it will not be due to increasing CO2!

  139. Steven,
    Please.
    Many of our sceptical leanings in favor of assuming
    qualities of natural variation when accepting the LIA or MWP
    are based on historical accounts more than proxies or measurements made at the time.
    I have made a certain amount of noise about adjustments to the historical record and the current stats.
    I believe that these adjustments do not contribute to the accuracy of the reported conditions and tend to confuse rather than clarify things,
    I think I am not alone in this.
    Isn’t it really the epitome of scientific hubris to
    declare that you can derive the temperature 100 years hence ?
    If this were a court I would have to say that it assumes facts that are not in evidence.
    Really, for all you or any of us know, in 100 years there may be Ice sheets bearing down upon us .
    Certainly one would have to take pause at the fact ( with which I assume you would not argue) that the inexorable warming predicted for the last decade failed to
    have the effects projected . And though the temnperature may still be above the norm favored by climate scientists ( coincidentally the same time that all of them were young bucks, cool and care free and healthy ) I think there is strong evidence that it has headed down of late, despite the statistical efforts given to maintain the upward trend.
    Could this not happen again in 90 years of 11, 30, and, 60 year oscillations which are only now becoming clear ( not to mention the unknown unknowns) ?

  140. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 20, 2010 at 11:11 am

    “I’m working on an article on this. Some links to my previous studies [that have some overlap] of this:”

    What a treat. You should have said Merry Christmas! Thanks so very much. I understand the care you must take to avoid being pilloried as a revisionist. I look forward to the completion of your article.

  141. kim says:
    December 20, 2010 at 11:51 am
    it’ll be the Eddy Minimum.
    There is already a proposal for the Solar Physics Division of the AAS to name it the ‘Eddy Minimum’.

    vukcevic says:
    December 20, 2010 at 12:54 pm
    I have no idea [...] but I can firmly state
    seems to be a frequent modus operandi around here.

  142. Steven Mosher says:
    December 20, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    “As for the definition of “global average” I think many people are mislead by the idea that it is a physical thing. It’s not. It’s operational.”

    I thank you for you frankness. You just said that the global average temperature does not measure something physical. No doubt all of your critics will be pleased with that. I believe it is a creature of computer models and worth just as much as they are. I understand that it can have an operational role in computer models.

    Whenever I see the phrase, I am reminded of the ancient joke about the farmers whose chickens stop laying eggs. After months of research by the county agriculture agent, the state agriculture team, a poultry researcher at the university, a biologist, a chemist, and finally a physicist, the physicst solves the problem and calls a meeting to explain his solution. The farmers are ecstatic. The physicist begins his presentation by drawing a circle on the blackboard and saying “Assume a spherical chicken…”

    [Reply - funny you should mention that: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/assume-a-spherical-cow-therefore-all-steaks-are-round/ re the very global average temperature you are talking about. ~jove, mod]

  143. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 20, 2010 at 10:43 am

    …Starting in 1945 the sunspot number is overcounted [not because of better telescopes as the same telescope that Wolf used in the 1850s was used] but because people tried to ‘improve’ the sunspot number by counting bigger spots several times over [a single large spot was counted as 5 spots].

    That sure sounds to me like something that would have been caused by better resolution. “But you see professor, when viewed in this new other scope that single spot is actually made of 5 spots!” I mean if the same scope was used, everything should look the same, so why was a spot that was 1 before 1945 suddenly made into 5? Did contact lenses come into use in 1945? Not sure how else to account for that. Sure it was a human decision that caused an issue, but only improved telescope resolution could make it possible, unless whoever is using this older scope is just deciding to imagine things.

    That said, the ‘undercounting’ in Brussels is interesting. It is not what I would have expected.

  144. “The idea of a global average temperature is as dumb as a “global average elevation”. ”

    Actually, both the reference ellipsoid and geoid are very useful indeed.

  145. “Sense Seeker says:
    December 20, 2010 at 3:10 am

    And assuming that solar activity has inadequately been accounted for in climate models, does this imply that the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on world average temperature may have been underestimated?”

    I’ll give a different answer from David Corcoran’s a short while back. It is: no, the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on world average temperature may have been overestimated. The logic is that the sun, with short vigorous cycles to 1996, contributed to global warming, so the contribution needed from CO2 to explain the observed warming is less than it would be otherwise. It’s so simple. Then during the long cycle 23 (1996-2009) temperatures flattened, and now they should fall. Let’s put IPCC on hold for 5 years while we see whether we do.

    Re Steven Mosher’s explanation of global average, I don’t think he meant to be understood as predicting it will be 2 degC higher in 2100, but was just using it as an example. It wasn’t the most enlightening piece I’ve seen him write – with the supposed polar amplification it is important to know the expected increase as a function of latitude. My own prediction is that 2100 will be 0.5-1.0 degC warmer in 2100, but will your grandchildren believe me?

    Rich.

  146. Well, I was going to respond to Sense Seeker’s thinly veiled claim that only CO2 can explain our recent warming changes in “climate.” Yet, kudos to the many other readers/commenters who pointed out the major flaw in his/her analysis: the global temperature record is corrupt. The fact is, no one knows if the world is warmer/colder/the same as any period from the past because the keepers of the data have manipulated and massaged, and at times made up the data.

    In my own view, I suspect it is quite a bit warmer world-wide today than in the 1850-1860 period based on the reports of ice, snow, and very cold winters 150 years ago. But, is it warmer today than in the 1930s? How would we know? There were no satellite records from then and the temperature records are not trustworthy.

    Also, is it warmer today than when Greenland was settled? We certainly do not see anybody today making settlements on the coast of Greenland like they did back then. Is it warmer today than in the prehistoric period when the hunter died in the Alpine pass and was buried by tons of snow and ice? His body was recently discovered when a glacier melted. It seems rather odd to me that he dug a hole down through the glacier of his day in order to die at the bottom of it. And he did his digging after being mortally wounded. He was one tough customer! No, a better explanation is he died in an ice-free pass and was covered by snow that later became the glacier.

    Given all the above, one must seriously question the entire role of CO2, that magical little molecule that has dramatic properties that cause so many people to proclaim that our modern world is “the hottest decade on record.” To believe that, one must explain how CO2 is highly selective in what it heats, and where it heats, because the temperature records we have that are fairly unadulterated show large inconsistencies between cities at similar latitudes. In real physics, a valid physical phenomenon is not capricious, but performs the same way in each application. I wrote on this on my blog at

    http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/usa-cities-hadcrut3-temperatures.html

    One small nit, re oceans and heat content. Oceans do not have any “latent” heat unless one is referring to ice caps. Liquid oceans have sensible heat.

  147. “Since the AGW alarmists have savaged the reputations of anyone who maintains that the sun has an influence on weather,…”

    Nonsense. Climate scientists have not ‘savaged the reputations of anyone who maintains that the sun has an influence on weather’. Scientists agree that solar activity has a very important influence on climate, and that until about 1950 it was the main factor determining global average temperatures, toghether with volcanic activity.

    However, solar activity cannot explain the warming seen over the past 30 years. This has been snown in countless peer-reviewed papers. Those who still maintain that ‘it is the sun’ are flogging a dead horse. Such people are rightly ridiculed in science. Only on blogs like these are they still believed.

    Yes, the sun has an influence, but that is now dwarfed by the effect of CO2.

  148. Dave Springer says:
    December 20, 2010 at 10:41 am (Edit)
    @tallbloke

    “Enhanced co2 Greenhouse conjecture is dead in the water, because Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ isn’t hiding in the system, it is the figment of a failed model. There is no missing heat, we will have to make do with what heat the oceans are still retaining.”

    Hard to hide much heat in the ocean with good sea level measurement. Just a matter of splitting it between thermal expansion and change in mass. IIRC it’s presumed to be about half thermal and on the rise 2-3mm/year which is not at all outside the bounds of natural rate of change. If we start cooling off for real rate of sea level rise will decrease accordingly. It may go negative and stay negative

    http://www.john-daly.com/altimetry/topex.htm

    Basically, satellite altimetry determines sea level rise over the last 17 years to be around 3.2mm/year +/-75mm

    And that error term is probably on the very generous side, it should probably be a good deal bigger.

    I’ve given up trying to measure energy input to the oceans with satellite altimetry for now. Though with suitable ‘adjustment’ it may still be useful.

    At least ARGO seems to be working pretty well.

  149. THANKS David Archibald for a series of exceedingly clear and accurate postings and predictions, and for your latest and most excellent posting. Let us hope you are correct that we are now in at least a slight Global Cooling period that, over the coming decades, will lower the temperature of Global Warming Alarm and lead us to a better understanding of what humans can and cannot do to affect Climate.

    Indeed, we may come to welcome the slight cushion of warmth, perhaps 0.1 to 0.2ºC, that may be due to recent and ongoing human activities. (The IPCC Climate “Team” claims 0.6 to 0.8ºC rise mostly due to human-caused Global Warming, but that is certainly a politically-motivated over-estimate.)

    I have graphed NASA’s incredible string of highly incorrect Sunspot Cycle #24 peak predictions from 2006 (156) to most recent (90) on top of your Figure 9, along with my (also high) prediction, almost two years ago, of a peak of 80 (when NASA was predicting 104!) and my most recent predicted peak of 60.

    The Dalton Minimum was marked by peaks of 45 and the Maunder of under 10. If we are headed for those numbers, will there be calls, a decade or so hence, for smudge pots to increase carbon emissions to solve the “Global Cooling problem”? Remember, all those Climate Models are over-sensitive to Carbon gasses and will (incorrectly) predict that burning Carbon will solve that problem. OY!

  150. It does not matter whether small sunspots are counted, what appears to be important is that the absent of large sunspots in the Maunder minimum coincided with a very cold period in history, similarly in the Dalton minimum there was also lower sunspot activity but this was viewed through a far superior telescope and smaller sunspots would have been counted, but this higher count still coincided with a very cold prolonged period.
    It does not matter whether the science is fully understood the link is there and it appears to be solid, a lack of LARGE sunspots = a cold climate.

    leif will state that the early counts are sparse and unreliable, read link below and concluding comments

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/g621x2918n7l05q6/fulltext.pdf

    Galileo began his observations of the sun in 1609 well before the lack of sunspots were obseved, see Leif graph.

    Leif should be trying understand the reasons why solar activity effects the earths climate instead of trying to debunk the historical evidence.

    Framsteeds telescope,

    Galileo`s and Newtons telescope

  151. Jeremy says:
    December 20, 2010 at 1:17 pm
    why was a spot that was 1 before 1945 suddenly made into 5? Did contact lenses come into use in 1945? Not sure how else to account for that. Sure it was a human decision that caused an issue, but only improved telescope resolution could make it possible, unless whoever is using this older scope is just deciding to imagine things.
    It was a human decision to assign a greater weight to large spots [to 'improve' the index]. The telescope was exactly the same, and sunspot counters to deliberately use low resolution to make their count compatible with the historical record. There is the further issue that there is a minimum size to a [true] sunspot and once your telescope is ‘good enough’, improved resolution does not make any difference. It is like counting people on the other side of the street: using a high-powered telescope for this does not increase the number of people you can see.

    That said, the ‘undercounting’ in Brussels is interesting. It is not what I would have expected.
    I would have expected a correct count, neither too low, nor too high. My own guess at the reason for the undercount is that more and more stations are contributing to the count [always good to have more eyeballs, right?] and those observers do not weight larger spots more [as the reference station Locarno does].

  152. Ira says:
    December 20, 2010 at 2:23 pm
    The Dalton Minimum was marked by peaks of 45 and the Maunder of under 10.
    These numbers are HIGHLY uncertain and are not known even to within a factor of two.

  153. Roger Sowell says:
    December 20, 2010 at 1:51 pm
    In my own view, I suspect it is quite a bit warmer world-wide today than in the 1850-1860 period based on the reports of ice, snow, and very cold winters 150 years ago. But, is it warmer today than in the 1930s?

    Interesting, because in the graphs above, the sunspot numbers were pretty low leading up to and through the 1930s, and the AP index was low as well. So what does this say about either the correlation, or about our perceptions?

  154. “Yes, the sun has an influence, but that is now dwarfed by the effect of CO2.”

    CO2 : the Paul Bunyan of atmospheric gasses . Legendary heavy lifter of the climate.
    More powerful than the sun itself.

  155. vukcevic says:
    December 20, 2010 at 1:50 pm
    my SSN formula would have closer correlation during the 19th century.
    We call that confirmation bias. Since it is junk, it doesn’t matter.

  156. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 20, 2010 at 1:13 pm
    vukcevic says:
    December 20, 2010 at 12:54 pm
    I have no idea [...] but I can firmly state
    seems to be a frequent modus operandi around here.

    Taken out of context. I have no idea what your motives are, but I can firmly state, whatever I have posted in last year or two you vehemently opposed, and likely to do for the foreseeable future. It is not only frequent but permanent modus operandi not only here, but it was on SC24 and J. Curry’s blog too, or maybe it is this:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm

    but I can’t firmly state, since I have no idea.

  157. Theo Goodwin says:
    December 20, 2010 at 1:14 pm
    You just said that the global average temperature does not measure something physical.
    It doesn’t matter if it is physical. Let the number of children in an average family be 2.5 in one county and 3.3 in the next county. Nobody has 0.5 and 0.3 children, so the numbers are not ‘physical’, but they are a very good basis for estimating how large the school budget for next year should be, so are highly meaningful, useful, and necessary.

  158. Low solar activity link to cold UK winters (14 April 2010 00:33 UK).

    Recent studies suggest that when solar activity is low, “blocking” events move eastwards from above north-eastern North America towards Europe, and become more stable.

    A prolonged “blocking” during the most recent winter was responsible for the long spell of freezing conditions that gripped Europe.

    Written observations from the period of the Maunder Minimum referred to the wind coming from the east during particularly cold winters, which strengthened the team’s “blocking” hypothesis.

    The way in which solar activity affects the behaviour of blocking episodes is linked to the amount of ultraviolet (UV) emissions being produced by the Sun.

    So Leif is this what you are looking for, the sign, low sunspot numbers, the cause, solar activity is linked to the amount of ultraviolet (UV) emissions being produced by the Sun.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8615789.stm

  159. vukcevic says:
    December 20, 2010 at 2:53 pm
    Taken out of context.
    The context was clear enough [and anybody can read your comment too]

    whatever I have posted in last year or two you vehemently opposed
    ‘vehemently’? No, just pointing out that it is junk with no physical basis. Such is the duty of every scientist.

    Robuk says:
    December 20, 2010 at 3:05 pm
    So Leif is this what you are looking for, the sign, low sunspot numbers, the cause, solar activity is linked to the amount of ultraviolet (UV) emissions being produced by the Sun.
    There is little, if any general correlation with solar activity. Compare the temperatures [upper panel] with solar activity [middle and lower panel - the latter from two different proxies] over the past 2000 years:

  160. vukcevic says:
    December 20, 2010 at 2:53 pm
    Taken out of context.
    The context was clear enough [and anybody can read your comment too]

    whatever I have posted in last year or two you vehemently opposed
    ‘vehemently’? No, just pointing out that it is junk with no physical basis. Such is the duty of every scientist. Post something good, and I’ll not object.

    Robuk says:
    December 20, 2010 at 3:05 pm
    So Leif is this what you are looking for, the sign, low sunspot numbers, the cause, solar activity is linked to the amount of ultraviolet (UV) emissions being produced by the Sun.
    There is little, if any general correlation with solar activity. Compare the temperatures [upper panel] with solar activity [middle and lower panel - the latter from two different proxies] over the past 2000 years:

  161. Sense Seeker says:
    December 20, 2010 at 2:04 pm
    “Those who still maintain that ‘it is the sun’ are flogging a dead horse. Such people are rightly ridiculed in science. Only on blogs like these are they still believed.”

    Which is why the scientists at CERN are doing very expensive CLOUD experiments.

    Solar Activity/Cosmic Rays/Clouds may or may not have a link. One only needs a 1% impact on cloud cover to explain all of Global Warming.

  162. The prediction is confirmed.

    It can’t be confirmed until we can look backwards and see that the whole thing happened as stated. We can say “the prediction, thus far, is confirmed.” Do not overstate your case.

    Overstatement was what the CAGW crowd did (and a possible reason why there is so much data-fiddling going on now—they went out on a limb and they have to “prove” they were right). The data-driven among us should only state what the data supports.

  163. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 20, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    Jeremy says:
    December 20, 2010 at 1:17 pm
    why was a spot that was 1 before 1945 suddenly made into 5? Did contact lenses come into use in 1945?

    Leif says,
    There is the further issue that there is a minimum size to a [true] sunspot and once your telescope is ‘good enough’, improved resolution does not make any difference. It is like counting people on the other side of the street: using a high-powered telescope for this does not increase the number of people you can see.

    Leif, when the next sunspeck appears see if this

    GOOD ENOUGH.

  164. The Sun’s current low level of activity just confirms what I’ve always said – don’t invest in solar power as it comes from a non-renewable source that we can’t control. :)

  165. Sense Seeker says:
    December 20, 2010 at 2:04 pm
    “Since the AGW alarmists have savaged the reputations of anyone who maintains that the sun has an influence on weather,…”

    Nonsense. Climate scientists have not ‘savaged the reputations of anyone who maintains that the sun has an influence on weather’. Scientists agree that solar activity has a very important influence on climate, and that until about 1950 it was the main factor determining global average temperatures, toghether with volcanic activity.

    However, solar activity cannot explain the warming seen over the past 30 years. This has been snown in countless peer-reviewed papers. Those who still maintain that ‘it is the sun’ are flogging a dead horse. Such people are rightly ridiculed in science. Only on blogs like these are they still believed.

    Yes, the sun has an influence, but that is now dwarfed by the effect of CO2.
    _________

    Sense Seeker, I agree with the general direction of your comments, but again, the vast majority of those here on WUWT will not. I do however believe that the role of the sun on climate, through secondary effects, such as the GCR/Cloud effects, high-energy UV, etc. has not been fully accounted for in Global Climate Models because it is not fully understood nor even acknowledged. When and if the secondary solar effects are considered and put properly into the models, it will be interesting to see what kind of difference it makes when compared to the effect of the 40% rise in CO2 since the 1700’s.

  166. Jimash
    ( coincidentally the same time that all of them were young bucks, cool and care free and healthy )

    Your comment immediately reminded me of my mum, she turned 91 this year.
    I can remember during the 70s she was constantly complaining about the cold “I hate the cold” she would say “it wasn’t this cold when I was a girl”. However by the late 90s she often remarked “yes this is much more like it was when I was a girl, I prefer this sort of weather”
    I guess the reality is that life is better when you’re young and whatever conditions were then, they are the conditions that you prefer.

  167. “So Leif is this what you are looking for, the sign, low sunspot numbers, the cause, solar activity is linked to the amount of ultraviolet (UV) emissions being produced by the Sun.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8615789.stm

    According to the article, that only applies to England.
    I didn’t know a hair could be split that fine.

  168. R. Gates says:
    December 20, 2010 at 3:58 pm
    I do however believe that the role of the sun on climate, through secondary effects, such as the GCR/Cloud effects, high-energy UV, etc. has not been fully accounted for in Global Climate Models
    All known – and quantifiable – effects [UV, TSI, etc] are fully incorporated into Global Climate Models already.

  169. Pamela Gray says:
    December 20, 2010 at 7:23 am
    Creighten says: “Then there is past correlation to consider. Correlation may not be causation, but that’s the way to bet it. A hypothesis without correlation of some sort to back it up will not fare well.”

    “Oh my. So MUCH harm and sorrow has been caused in the past by just such a belief as you state regarding science. And much harm repaired by people courageous enough to purpose a hypothesis not so evident to the masses but proposed first through plausible mechanism, followed by observation, then through experimentation, and by every attempt to disprove it. Let us never, never go back to your way of thinking, else we find ourselves in a modern dark age.”

    =============================

    If your hypothesis makes predictions which show a low correlation to observed conditions, and fail to correlate with the results produced through experimentation, and if these efforts produce a high corelation with the predictions of the null hypothesis… I fear your hypothesis will not fare well.

    But if some subsequent findings trump the lack of happy correlation, you hypothesis might just be able to weather the storm… and I would have made a bad bet. Those who are making truely gigantic bets on the AGW Hypothesis, for example, with taxpayer’s money, are doing just that, making bets. I would be happy to have lost and for them to have won, if that turned out to be the case.

    I fear that it will not turn out that way. Indeed, it may already not have.

  170. harrywr2 says:
    December 20, 2010 at 3:21 pm
    Which is why the scientists at CERN are doing very expensive CLOUD experiments.
    No, the scientists at CERN are not doing any such experiments. CERN only lends some unused, obsolete capacity to outside scientists for this.

  171. Binny
    “I guess the reality is that life is better when you’re young and whatever conditions were then, they are the conditions that you prefer.”

    Mum sounds very sensible and perceptive. She liked the 30’s when it was warm and she liked the 90’s when it was warm.
    The climate scientists on the other hand, idealize a mean that was a fleeting moment,
    and think that we somehow can backstep into that moment and nail it down for good.
    But look at the graphs. The “normal” was just a few years in the 60’s .
    That is why they work so hard at flattening out the handle of that hockey stick, to make it appear as if there were some lasting norm that should be re-attainable .
    If they were honest about it they would admit that their “norm” was a transitional moment and that any attempts to recapture that transitional moment and make it permanent, are deluded.

  172. Sense Seeker says:
    December 20, 2010 at 3:10 am
    Solar activity started declining in 2003 – not so long ago. The Sun was more active in the second half of the 20th century than it has been for the previous eight thousand years. CO2 was worth 0.1 of a degree of the 20th century rise.

    Roger Carr says:
    December 20, 2010 at 3:30 am
    I read Indigo Jones’ stuff and could not make any sense of it.

    HR says:
    December 20, 2010 at 3:38 am
    My prediction is holding up very well. The Sun is behaving as predicted. Everything else will follow. I am not able to satisfactorily predict when the seas will stop rising though.

    richard jenkins says:
    December 20, 2010 at 4:45 am
    Try reading more widely. I only get to post here because I am filling a vacuum. You have the opportunity to displace me by offering up work with greater predictive ability.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 20, 2010 at 5:15 am
    I checked the SIDC count post solar minimum against the F10.7 flux and they are basically line ball. So sunspots are not being over-counted.

    Espen says:
    December 20, 2010 at 6:48 am
    I keep putting in references to the 1970s cooling period in my graphs because it upsets the warmers. Note the high CGR flux in the early 1970s. Thus according to Svensmark theory, the Sun did play a role in the cooling of the 1970s.

    Madman2001 says:
    December 20, 2010 at 7:23 am
    It is really flattering that people are digging up my original paper, the one that started the whole solar-climate connection. The source of the temperature data was Warwick Hughes, who emailed me a file of long term European temperature records. That reminds me. The UK Met Office said it would take three years to fix up their version of the historic record. So now we have two years to go. In two years time, there may be an easily accessible repository of temperature data that we can use for these sort of studies. When I was starting out in this field, all I had was scraps of information.

    John Whitman says:
    December 20, 2010 at 8:25 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/13/solar-driven-temperature-decline-predicted-for-norway-by-a-norwegian/

    The eleven year cycle is very, very important. Witness the work of Professor Solheim in Oslo referenced in the above link. He applied the Butler and Johnson methodology to the Norwegian temperature record, and was able to determine that the carbon-secreting Norwegians are going to get whacked by a 1.5 degree decline. You cannot wish the Schwabe cycle away.

    Dr. Lurtz says:
    December 20, 2010 at 8:26 am
    Agreed. If solar minimum is associated with a 0.1 degree decline on average, flux conditions that are essentially a continuation of solar minimum should result in a decline of 0.1 degrees every one or two years. I believe that you are also right on EUV, which may be a more important effect than GCRs on cloud cover. The full effect of EUV seems to work straight away, the GCR effect may be more cumulative. I think you have the right framework to make progress.

    Ira says:
    December 20, 2010 at 2:23 pm
    The question is what is the tipping point that gets the next glaciation underway? Insolation at 60 degrees north is now low enough to initiate it. It might be the next Maunder Minimum-type event that will get the Northern Hemisphere albedo up. I am working on this subject with another Perth scientist. The atmosphere is deficient in carbon and so are the rocks that we can access. Over the next few hundred years, we will dig all that carbon up and the deep oceans will simply swallow it down and we will never see it again. Rocks down to 10% carbon can burn in pure oxygen, and we will dig them all up. Some of that precious carbon will be applied to the advancing glacier front as per your smudge pots.

  173. Sense Seeker says:
    December 20, 2010 at 2:04 pm
    “Since the AGW alarmists have savaged the reputations of anyone who maintains that the sun has an influence on weather,…”

    Nonsense. Climate scientists have not ‘savaged the reputations of anyone who maintains that the sun has an influence on weather’. Scientists agree that solar activity has a very important influence on climate, and that until about 1950 it was the main factor determining global average temperatures, toghether with volcanic activity.

    However, solar activity cannot explain the warming seen over the past 30 years. This has been snown in countless peer-reviewed papers. Those who still maintain that ‘it is the sun’ are flogging a dead horse. Such people are rightly ridiculed in science. Only on blogs like these are they still believed.

    Yes, the sun has an influence, but that is now dwarfed by the effect of CO2.

    So the sun`s activity since the 50`s has been at it`s highest for around 8000 years and the temperature goes up, then the sun goes dormant and the temperature goes down with CO2 still rising, didn`t take much to knock CO2 on the head did it.

  174. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 20, 2010 at 4:33 pm
    R. Gates says:
    December 20, 2010 at 3:58 pm
    I do however believe that the role of the sun on climate, through secondary effects, such as the GCR/Cloud effects, high-energy UV, etc. has not been fully accounted for in Global Climate Models
    All known – and quantifiable – effects [UV, TSI, etc] are fully incorporated into Global Climate Models already.

    ——–
    I would throw in with Gates on this one.
    ———-
    then:
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 20, 2010 at 4:39 pm
    harrywr2 says:
    December 20, 2010 at 3:21 pm
    Which is why the scientists at CERN are doing very expensive CLOUD experiments.
    No, the scientists at CERN are not doing any such experiments. CERN only lends some unused, obsolete capacity to outside scientists for this.
    ————–
    Wow you make it sound like they are lending a trash can to some moonshiners.

    http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/CLOUD-en.html

  175. I am not an alarmists, but we have yet been able to tie or correlate solar activity to some atmospheric condition that relates to long term climate variation. The minimum we’re seeing now is only a few year old, where as the Mauner Minimum lasted 5-6 decades. The Dalton Minimum also had at least one major tropical volcanic erruption (1815) that skewed global temperatures for a year.

    What I find interesting, and what few people have commented on is the much longer DeVries Cycle. According to its definition, it cycles fully every 400 years (200 years negative, 200 years positive). The Sporer, Maunder, and Dalton Miniumum occurred mainly during the negative DeVries Cycle. It’s been 190 years since it went positive.

    In any event, there are plenty of fascinating theories out there concerning solar activity and climate, but none have yet been “proven”.

  176. For cold winters to provide positive feedback, snow cover has to survive from one winter to the next so that snow’s higher albedo relative to bare rock will reflect sunlight into space, causing cooler summers.

    I submit that this statement is incorrect (an over simplification). The key issue is when and where the snow falls and how long it stays on the ground. Snow will have its highest impact on albedo if it is a late snowfall when things are starting to green up and the sun is near its highest altitude during the day. Snow fall on the ground in late May and early June will have a significant impact on total energy absorbed compared to the same snow event in late December or January when the sun is at its lowest altitude (northern hemisphere) and all the vegetation is withered for the winter.

    To assign an appropriate weight to the effect of a snow fall you would have to consider the solar angle at the time of the snow fall, the area covered and the duration of the snow fall (with some consideration for its depth). Multiple large area snow falls late in winter and early spring could reflect away considerably more of the sun’s heat than the same snow depth deposited in a single snow storm in the depth of winter.

    Think area under the curve with the curve plotted according to area covered and duration of cover then weighted by the suns angle to the surface at mid day.

    Larry

  177. The best of the best Dr. Hathaway predicted a big solar cycle 24, reaching 140+. Hathaway has since progressively updated this prediction well after the horse had left the starting blocks. What the experts are saying is “we don’t really know any more than you”.
    If you look at the 11year cycles amplitudes back to 1750, it is obvious that there is a rough cyclic pattern on about a 10th harmonic. This tells me that the next two cycles will peak at 50 to 60. We will not be able to compare the temperatures that we are given by GISS as they are unreliable because of continual adjustments made to the baseline.

  178. Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
    December 20, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    Theodore Landscheidt predicted a Grand Solar Minimum starting in 1990 bottoming out in 2030 and ending by 2070. This isn’t guess work or hyperbole. This is very predictable planetary mechanics controlling the weather on the Sun, which in turn controls our weather here. It is well underway as demonstrated by the decade of recent cooling.

    That statement is not correct. He incorrectly predicted a grand minimum for 1990, and then moved onto 2030 as the height of the next grand minimum. Theodor was incorrect because he was looking at the wrong indicator related to solar angular momentum. He used the zero crossings that occur when the Sun is at the centre of the solar system which are now seen to sometimes occur near grand minima. There is extensive study relating to this on my blog if you are interested.

    Theo Goodwin and Robuk are correct about how we count spots today along with the equipment. You have to be very careful when reading Leif’s replies as he does not give all the information needed to form a reasoned outcome.

    The telescopes today see far more than those used by Wolf, only the magnification is the same. When it comes to seeing the aperture size is what is important. An 80mm Wolf telescope is able under the best conditions to see a spot that is 1051 kilometers wide, the modern 150mm telescope has resolution down to 558 kilometers. This is indisputable and I have setup myself two telescopes to prove this. So the new telescope sees twice as much. Looking at the Locarno and Catania sunspot drawings you can see they are counting specks that are 700 kilometers across, Wolf couldn’t and didn’t count these.

    Leif also admits that after 1945 the counting method has changed substantially, this alone shows we can’t compare the modern count with the Wolf reconstruction of the Dalton. We also had very good records during cycle 6 so we don’t need to only focus on cycle 5.

    Today’s SIDC count is in line with the NOAA count (in raw format). I don’t believe we are under counting spots today. Leif uses a perceived deviation between the F10.7 flux values and the sunspot record to bolster his claim, but he uses his own F10.7 data to show this deviation. If the standard Canadian F10.7 data is used there is no deviation. This can be viewed in the “L&P debunking” article on my blog along with a thorough history on the Wolf telescope and counting methods on the Layman’s page.

    richard jenkins says:
    December 20, 2010 at 4:45 am

    Look at this data set, it goes back 11,000 years, until 50 years before now.
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/solanki2004-ssn.txt
    Where is the Dalton minimum?

    If you plot the data correctly it is clearly present.

  179. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 20, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    R. Gates says:
    December 20, 2010 at 3:58 pm
    I do however believe that the role of the sun on climate, through secondary effects, such as the GCR/Cloud effects, high-energy UV, etc. has not been fully accounted for in Global Climate Models
    ————————————–
    All known – and quantifiable – effects [UV, TSI, etc] are fully incorporated into Global Climate Models already.

    Total garbage….if so they would have predicted a leveling off after 1998 and a temperature decline beginning now. The models assume a mainly positive AO and NAO as a result of Co2, I guess they got that bit wrong too. The “EUV effect” on atmospheric oscillations has been missed and they are now panicking.

    For once Gates has made a reasonable statement.

  180. Dan Kirk-Davidoff started out “Skeptics: ….” then said something about sensitivity.

    Dan, sensitivity derived the from the CO2 to temperature relationship cherrypicks one relationship and ignores other factors that drive temperature. If sensitivity is really as high as the catastrophists say, then the ocean must be storing most of the heat because we have not seen the predicted warming. But that heat could only be stored in the ocean by overturning which would also sequester CO2. So the simple conclusion is that if we stop producing CO2, the “extra” (above 280) will diminish by 1/2 in about 40 years. Crisis averted, now go have a talk with China.

  181. David Archibald says:

    “It is really flattering that people are digging up my original paper, the one that started the whole solar-climate connection…”

    ____

    Your paper “started” the whole solar-climate connection? Wow! Did you publish your original paper before the work of William Hershel, Charles Greeley Abbot, Waldo S. Glock, or even before Dr. Jack Eddy made his rather groundbreaking hypothesis in 1976? If so, my hat off to you…if not, then you’ve suffered from a bit of a hyperbole I think…

  182. David Archibald says:
    December 20, 2010 at 4:46 pm
    The Sun was more active in the second half of the 20th century than it has been for the previous eight thousand years.
    There is no good evidence for that. In fact, for the opposite, e.g. the Steinhilber TSI reconstruction, which I showed the last 2000 years of, already:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 20, 2010 at 5:15 am
    I checked the SIDC count post solar minimum against the F10.7 flux and they are basically line ball. So sunspots are not being over-counted.
    Scientists do not do ‘basically line ball’ analysis, and I have shown that sunspots are being under-counted, not over-counted, so although your method is suspect, you seem to agree with that.

    R. Gates says:
    December 20, 2010 at 3:58 pm
    “has not been fully accounted for in Global Climate Models
    L.S.: All known – and quantifiable – effects [UV, TSI, etc] are fully incorporated into Global Climate Models already.”
    I would throw in with Gates on this one.

    Then you simply don’t know how the models work. The source code is available, you know.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 20, 2010 at 4:39 pm
    Wow you make it sound like they are lending a trash can to some moonshiners.
    You are quite perceptive. CLOUD is not run by CERN. but just at CERN.

    Geoff Sharp says:
    December 20, 2010 at 5:23 pm
    Looking at the Locarno and Catania sunspot drawings you can see they are counting specks that are 700 kilometers across, Wolf couldn’t and didn’t count these.
    You are omitting that there is a factor applied to these counts to align them with the standard count

    Leif also admits that after 1945 the counting method has changed substantially
    Actually, I have shown and drawn the attention that the counting method changed and that therefore the counts after 1945 are too high, compared with Wolfer’s counts. Wolfer counted more than 2.5 times as many spots as Wolf [since 1860]. Modern observers follow Wolfer’s correct method as the only workable solution.

    Today’s SIDC count is in line with the NOAA count (in raw format). I don’t believe we are under counting spots today.
    You simply do not know or else play ignorant, that SIDC both compared to NOAA and the Keller using the original telescope are undercounting.

    Leif uses a perceived deviation between the F10.7 flux values and the sunspot record to bolster his claim, but he uses his own F10.7 data to show this deviation. If the standard Canadian F10.7 data is used there is no deviation.
    The claim is not derived from F10.7 [original of improved]. That there is a deviation from F10.7 [also found by Ken Tapping using only the Canadian data] is not due to undercounting but to the Livingston & Penn effect. This will hit any observer and thus have no influence on the counting differences.

  183. Geoff Sharp says:
    December 20, 2010 at 5:43 pm
    “All known – and quantifiable – effects [UV, TSI, etc] are fully incorporated into Global Climate Models already.”
    Total garbage….if so they would have predicted a leveling off after 1998 and a temperature decline beginning now.

    You simply do not know how the models work. The source code is available, go look. Or just read a high-level explanation. That the models still get it wrong have other reasons.

  184. This notion that we are in another Dalton Minimum seems so far to be based on a “hunch”. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence so far that we are in for consecutive weak cycles except for someone’s belief that we are based on … well … nothing as far as I can tell so far.

    So we are going to have a weak cycle. So far I see nothing that says the next cycle will be weak, too. Cycle 14 was pretty weak with over 1000 spotless days. It was followed by a stronger cycle with only half the number of spotless days. People who are claiming to know what is going to happen ought to put up some supporting data aside from simply showing what other cycles did in the past.

  185. Steven Mosher says:
    December 20, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    You miss the point. you will note the following inconsistency in some skeptical arguments.

    When the topic is the increase in the “global average” you will find people:
    1. Claiming that it doesnt exist
    2. Claiming that there are too few thermometers to measure it
    3. Claiming that the thermometers lack the accuracy to determine the number
    4. Claiming that there are huge amounts of bias in that number

    When the topic is correlation of temperature with Sun spots you will find

    1. Nobody claiming the global average doesnt make sense
    2. Nobody claiming there are two few thermometers
    3. Nobody complaining about the accuracy
    4. Nobody talking about bias.

    And I made none of these claims. I’m saying a “global average temperature” tells you nothing about the atmospheric heat content. It only tells you what the average temps are where there are thermometers, or in the case of satellites, what they’ve smoothed.

    If, since 1850, some places have cooled, some have no trend, and some have warmed, there a global average tells us nothing except that it’s an average.

  186. I agree that the agw policy threat and subsidized energy markets are a greater threat than 2c cooling. The new normal for growth in the US combined with so many unsustainable spending policies a lot of misery before we even get to the 2014 test solar peaks. Of course the one-two punch of economic and debt malaise coming before global cooling realization is about as scary as Maundering Minimum. Also, it was most reprehensible to see climate change being used to explain current cold autumn. They don’t have to rub their noses in it…..or do they. Agw all the time, 24-7

  187. @R Gates,

    Yes, I can see that there is an ongoing discussion about the role of cloud cover. Regrettably, that topic is beyond my understanding and (being a scientist) I therefore have to believe the published literature. And although Lindzen & Choi and a few others have found that cloud cover will partly compensate for the warming effect of CO2, as far as I can see most studies support the opposite view: that cloud cover will exacerbate warming. I hope Lindzen & Choi are right, but won’t bet on it.

    And anyway, that is on top of an estimated 1.2°C of directly CO2-caused global warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, and another 1 to 2°C from a combination of melting snow/ice and increased evaporation of water.

    @ those who say the temperature record is so flawed that we don’t even know if it’s warming or cooling: (1) gletchers all over the world retreat (and not only those next to cities or airports), ice sheets are thinning, and sea levels are rising; (2) your latest hype, the UHI hypothesis, has no support in the literature and until it has, it remains good for filling blogs but little else.

  188. I think that Leif has solved the problem. He said

    Quote

    Electric currents must be maintained [by an emf] otherwise they short out. It has been known for decades that such emf is naturally provided by neutral plasma [conductors] moving [by gravity or thermal gradients] across magnetic fields provides the needed emf. The lamp on my old bicycle was produced by such a method [called a dynamo].

    Unquote

    He also provided a very useful link regarding bubbles and ropey things. So lets put it all together.

    Sunspots are an indicator of turbulence in the sun, moving plasma and as Leif says moving plasma crossing magnetic fields generates an emf and thus an electric current.

    We know that the ropey things transfers that current through space to a load, the Earth. Themis has imaged them and Nasa has reported on them. Electric current sheets have been measured in the Aurora. now when you apply electric current to a load you get heat.

    Thus low sunspots, low current , low heat and vice versa.

    Thank you Leif

  189. crosspatch says:
    December 20, 2010 at 6:26 pm

    People who are claiming to know what is going to happen ought to put up some supporting data aside from simply showing what other cycles did in the past.

    Your point is valid, and much will be uncovered soon. We did not have the technology during the last grand minimum, but one suggestion is that grand minimum type cycles suffer a ‘phase catastrophe’ where the hale cycle is broken. This will lead to a failure of one or both solar poles not changing polarity which will take another cycle before balance to the dynamo is restored…we will see but the WSO record right now is not looking good for pole reversal at cycle max.

  190. “I agree that the agw policy threat and subsidized energy markets are a greater threat than 2c cooling. ”

    But both combined are a recipe for disaster.

  191. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 20, 2010 at 6:07 pm
    Geoff Sharp says:
    December 20, 2010 at 5:43 pm
    “All known – and quantifiable – effects [UV, TSI, etc] are fully incorporated into Global Climate Models already.”
    Total garbage….if so they would have predicted a leveling off after 1998 and a temperature decline beginning now.
    You simply do not know how the models work. The source code is available, go look. Or just read a high-level explanation. That the models still get it wrong have other reasons.
    ________
    My original point is that there very likely are UN-known (or at least, not as yet fully quantifiable) secondary solar effects that have not yet been incorporated into the GCM’s, and when they are, the GCM’s will be more accurate in predicting future climate scenarios. These as yet not included effects could include the GCR/cloud relationship, high energy UV effects, solar-geomagnetic effects, etc. There is no way these secondary effects could be currently included (at least not accurately) in GCM’s as none of their dynamics are as yet fully understood or even proven.

    The bottom line is, even when such secondary effects are finally included in GCM’s, it remains to be seen how much difference it will make in terms of overtaking the dominant forcing role that the 40% increase in CO2 plays in the models, such that, even if we are entering a period of weak solar activity, it still could be the case that this activity will only slightly lessen the effect of centuries of rapidly increasing CO2 concentrations. The good thing is, we should know the answer to these questions in the next few years…

  192. The Year Without a Summer, in 1816

    Yes, that’s what it was known as here in the USA, because the massive 1815 Eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia blew an untold amount of dust and debris into the atmosphere in 1815 and it took that long to get over to the states.

    It may be that the climate anomaly was caused by a combination of a historic low in solar activity with a volcanic winter event; the latter caused by a succession of major volcanic eruptions capped off by the Mount Tambora eruption of 1815, the largest known eruption in over 1,600 years.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

  193. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 20, 2010 at 6:03 pm

    Geoff Sharp says:
    December 20, 2010 at 5:23 pm
    Looking at the Locarno and Catania sunspot drawings you can see they are counting specks that are 700 kilometers across, Wolf couldn’t and didn’t count these.
    —————-
    You are omitting that there is a factor applied to these counts to align them with the standard count

    And you are omitting that Wolfer applied this factor outside of a grand minimum. The factor falls down when the speck ratio increases, so it is better to use a threshold like Wolf. Plus you are omitting that the factor was applied to the 80mm telescope that does not see as much as the current 150mm telescope. This is simple telescope basics.

    The claim is not derived from F10.7 [original of improved]. That there is a deviation from F10.7 [also found by Ken Tapping using only the Canadian data] is not due to undercounting but to the Livingston & Penn effect. This will hit any observer and thus have no influence on the counting differences.

    Once again your not giving the full detail. Tapping’s exercise shows a deviation around cycle max when flare activity was unusually high, he does not show the deviation over the whole back half of SC23 as you do. The L&P effect continues to be junk science as outlined so many times.

    You agree that the record needs adjustment after 1945…that should be the end of the argument. We are not comparing apples.

    Are you still holding the line that we are not heading into a grand minimum?

  194. The alarmists cannot spot the Dalton minimum, perhaps, because they suffer from Dalton’s disease—that is, they cannot distinguish red from green.

  195. Thanks Tallbloke

    “so the La Nina’s following the El nino’s will take the surface temps lower than before the previous El Nino from now until the sun perks up again.”

    I like shorter term predictions like this we should get the first insight in 12 months or so, something to watch.

  196. “Your point is valid, and much will be uncovered soon.”

    That sounds like the mumbo jumbo that Madame Sofia up the street says when she looks into her crystal ball.

    If you have physical evidence that this cycle will be anything different than other such weak cycles we have seen in the past, then present it. What evidence is there that there will be more than one weak cycle (as in two successive weak cycles as the Dalton Minimum was)? Please show the basis for the “prediction” else label it as speculation.

    Weak cycles probably happen all the time. We haven’t been reliably recording sunspots for that long (only 24 going on 25th cycle) so over the course of geological history weak cycles are probably pretty common. Actually, it would appear that multiple weak cycles and long periods of no sunspots would be pretty common, too, else we wouldn’t have seen them over this sort of time (and by short time, I am thinking of anything shorter than 100,000 years).

  197. The last seven solar cycles have been very intense. Solar Cycle 19 stood above the rest back to 1750. I believe that the sun will be “resting” for at least the next few cycles and I would expect more than the usual cloud cover to follow.

    Can anyone tell me which comes first, CO2 or temperature?

  198. I want to correct this:
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 20, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    “harrywr2 says:
    December 20, 2010 at 3:21 pm
    Which is why the scientists at CERN are doing very expensive CLOUD experiments.”
    No, the scientists at CERN are not doing any such experiments. CERN only lends some unused, obsolete capacity to outside scientists for this.

    CERN is a laboratory controlled by the countries that support it through committees. One of them is a committee that accepts proposals for experiments from any group and judges them on their scientific merit, in a sense a peer review . If the resources exist and the experiment is considered worthy of execution, it is approved. If the group does not come from a country that supports CERN extra money will be requested, otherwise CERN supplies the facilities and the experimenters the set up needed for the experiment. For CLOUD to be approved it means that a scientific committee judged it worthy of the effort and time on the machines needed.

  199. crosspatch says:
    December 20, 2010 at 9:11 pm

    “Your point is valid, and much will be uncovered soon.”

    That sounds like the mumbo jumbo that Madame Sofia up the street says when she looks into her crystal ball.

    If you have physical evidence that this cycle will be anything different than other such weak cycles we have seen in the past, then present it. What evidence is there that there will be more than one weak cycle (as in two successive weak cycles as the Dalton Minimum was)? Please show the basis for the “prediction” else label it as speculation.

    Perhaps you should get out more, if you have not made yourself acquainted with my research can I suggest it might be a good place to start. There is ample history in the sunspot record and also in the isotope records showing multiple solar cycles shutting down on regular basis that follow a regular pattern. This pattern is repeatable and its strength is quantifiable to the point that I can predict the next 200 years at least. I wont bore everyone with the detail here.

    There is a chance the pattern might be be broken this time. but I don’t like your chances.

  200. Grey Lensman says:
    December 20, 2010 at 7:44 pm
    We know that the ropey things transfers that current through space to a load, the Earth. Themis has imaged them and Nasa has reported on them. Electric current sheets have been measured in the Aurora. now when you apply electric current to a load you get heat.
    Almost there, but not quite. The current is not transferred through space, the magnetic field of the rope and the plasma in it are. When that plasma hits the magnetic field of the Earth, a new current is generated. This is the current that makes the aurora. The total energy [some 100 GigaWatt on a good day over the hemisphere] in the aurora is, however, very small compared to the energy that ordinary sunlight contains, so you don’t get much heat that way.

    Geoff Sharp says:
    December 20, 2010 at 7:45 pm
    but the WSO record right now is not looking good for pole reversal at cycle max.
    Yes, it is looking good, the reversal is already under way: 25% of the field is already gone. I would say we are right on track.

    R. Gates says:
    December 20, 2010 at 8:01 pm
    These as yet not included effects could include the GCR/cloud relationship, high energy UV effects, solar-geomagnetic effects, etc. There is no way these secondary effects could be currently included (at least not accurately) in GCM’s as none of their dynamics are as yet fully understood or even proven.
    The only one not included is the GCR/cloud hypothesis. UV and geomagnetic heating are well understood and proven [their effects are just small].

    Geoff Sharp says:
    December 20, 2010 at 8:05 pm
    And you are omitting that Wolfer applied this factor outside of a grand minimum. The factor falls down when the speck ratio increases, so it is better to use a threshold like Wolf. Plus you are omitting that the factor was applied to the 80mm telescope that does not see as much as the current 150mm telescope. This is simple telescope basics.
    There is no evidence that 1) we are in a grand minimum and 2) that the factor is systematically different depending on activity [this has been extensively studied for over a century]. Whatever difference the telescope makes is taken care of by the individual factors for each observer.

    Let us go through the various comparisons, first here is NOAA vs. SIDC since 1991 and their ratio. http://www.leif.org/research/NOAA-vs-SIDC.png . As is evident, around 2001, SIDV dropped 11% compared to NOAA, both in values [lower numbers] and ratios [upper numbers], showing the SIDC undercount, contrary to your claim.

    Keller and Friedli use the original 80 mm Wolf telescope and since Keller was Waldmeier’s assistant also the weighting scheme [i.e. everything the same since 1945], and it is clear that again around 2001, SIDC goes lower:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Keller-SIDC.png .
    The last few years are shown here in more detail: http://www.leif.org/research/Keller-SIDC-2.png ,
    again SIDC is undercounting, compared to the standard in use since 1945.

    These comparisons and the conclusion that SIDC is undercounting are completely independent of the F10.7 record, so that straw man you can scrap.

    Once again your not giving the full detail. Tapping’s exercise shows a deviation around cycle max when flare activity was unusually high, he does not show the deviation over the whole back half of SC23 as you do.
    Again you are not knowing what you are talking about [or worse: you do know, but misrepresents].
    Here is Tappings paper from 2010:

    http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session6/6.03_Tapping_F10.7.pdf

    “• During late Cycle 23, the relationship between photospheric activity changed, with more coronal activity than one might expect on the basis of the level of photospheric activity. [i.e. sunspots too low compared to F10.7]
    • Indications are that in Cycle 24 so far the deviation from “standard behaviour” is continuing or perhaps increasing.”
    Note the ‘perhaps increasing’

    This deviation is the observed L&P effect, but has nothing to do with the differences in counting, so perhaps you should stop using that straw man from now on.

    You agree that the record needs adjustment after 1945…that should be the end of the argument. We are not comparing apples.
    I discovered and told you that the record needs adjustment and also precisely how much, so you should indeed not have an argument. Wolf did not observe before 1848, so none of your ideas apply. He adjusted other peoples count using geomagnetic records and auroral counts. Those are your ‘apples’.

    Are you still holding the line that we are not heading into a grand minimum?
    The Dalton minimum was not a Grand Minimum. All we know is that solar activity is back to where it was 107 years ago. How it will develop we don’t know. Statistically, a small cycle is followed by other small cycles, but not always. Anything else is speculation.

  201. anna v says:
    December 20, 2010 at 9:46 pm
    For CLOUD to be approved it means that a scientific committee judged it worthy of the effort and time on the machines needed.
    That still does not mean that CERN is running the experiment, just that it has been approved.

  202. “The 1970s cooling period had much higher snow cover minima than the last thirty years. Despite the last few cold winters, there was no increase in the snow cover minima. The snow cover minimum may have to get to over two million square kilometres before it starts having a significant effect.”

    Thank God for all the new Coal Plants in China. Combine that with elevated CO2 levels and modern cereal crop varieties and we may be able to grow more than single crops of hay in Canada during this ‘Grand Minima’ ;)

  203. HR says:
    December 20, 2010 at 9:08 pm
    Thanks Tallbloke

    “so the La Nina’s following the El nino’s will take the surface temps lower than before the previous El Nino from now until the sun perks up again.”

    I like shorter term predictions like this we should get the first insight in 12 months or so, something to watch.

    I think you’ll find it generally true over the decadal timescale. There is noise in the system generated by cloud cover change and ocean reverberation which might bring about exceptions o shorter timeframes. Take a look at the SST record for the end of the C19th when the sun got quiet heading towards 1910.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1880/to:1915

  204. R. Gates says:
    December 20, 2010 at 8:01 pm
    The bottom line is, even when such secondary (solar) effects are finally included in GCM’s, it remains to be seen how much difference it will make in terms of overtaking the dominant forcing role that the 40% increase in CO2 plays in the models, such that, even if we are entering a period of weak solar activity, it still could be the case that this activity will only slightly lessen the effect of centuries of rapidly increasing CO2 concentrations. The good thing is, we should know the answer to these questions in the next few years…

    Yes, the evidence is growing that the climate modelling charlatans will introduce the solar effects they’ve been denying all along and keep a diminished role for co2 affecting cloud cover as a face saver. (it should take us a while to debunk that claim).

    I see Kevin Trenberth is ahead of the curve…

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/2009GL037527.pdf

    Global warming due to increasing absorbed solar radiation
    Kevin E. Trenberth1 and John T. Fasullo1
    Received 28 January 2009; revised 10 March 2009; accepted 19 March 2009; published 14 April 2009.
    [1] Global climate models used in the Intergovernmental
    Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report
    (AR4) are examined for the top-of-atmosphere radiation
    changes as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases build
    up from 1950 to 2100. There is an increase in net radiation
    absorbed, but not in ways commonly assumed. While there
    is a large increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing
    greenhouse gases and water vapor (as a feedback), this is
    offset to a large degree by a decreasing greenhouse effect
    from reducing cloud cover and increasing radiative
    emissions from higher temperatures. Instead the main
    warming from an energy budget standpoint comes from
    increases in absorbed solar radiation that stem directly from
    the decreasing cloud amounts.

  205. “There is ample history in the sunspot record and also in the isotope records showing multiple solar cycles shutting down on regular basis that follow a regular pattern. This pattern is repeatable and its strength is quantifiable to the point that I can predict the next 200 years at least. I wont bore everyone with the detail here.”

    Interesting, you seem to go exactly around what I thought I said. What evidence do you have that this low cycle will be repeated in the next cycle? We have a LOT of evidence of single low cycles, a double low cycle, and a period of several “missed” cycles. So what? What exactly leads you to your conclusion about cycle 26? We know that cycle 25 appears low, that is granted, what you seem to be avoiding is directly answering my question about why you state that cycle 26 will also be low.

    Can you state it in clear language that is different than “all will be revealed” and following that with “I explained it already” because I don’t believe I have seen any such explanation and I am very curious about what leads you to that conclusion. I can’t find anything that would lead me to any firm conclusion that cycle 26 will also be low. It might be. Or it might not be. We have several instances of single low cycles.

  206. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 20, 2010 at 10:19 pm

    There is no evidence that 1) we are in a grand minimum and 2) that the factor is systematically different depending on activity [this has been extensively studied for over a century]. Whatever difference the telescope makes is taken care of by the individual factors for each observer.

    But you have said yourself the L&P effect (whatever that is) produces more specks, so no denying we have more specks. You are ignoring the major point, the larger telescopes are picking up smaller specks that get counted. Locarno has been the base station that every other station is factored against for decades…it has a 150mm telescope. This is not allowed for in the 0.6 reduction factor that is based on the 80mm telescope. It wouldn’t matter what evidence was presented you would argue around it.

    There is no point using Keller as a benchmark, you dont have access to his sunspot drawings and are completely unaware of his methods or factors that could be in play.

    I dont like your NOAA graph, once again you make up your own data. If we plot the standard deviation between NOAA and SIDC using NOAA’s published monthly values we see the SIDC is tracking at 0.6 since 2001, there is no deviation or undercounting.

    Tappings conclusions are not backed up with convincing data. When I plot his Canadian F10.7 data against the the SIDC daily record I only get a deviation near cycle max. I am not sure what you guys are doing unless you are mining for funds, his closing statement “Weird solar behaviour should be good for solar and space
    weather funding.”
    sort of says it all?

  207. crosspatch says:
    December 21, 2010 at 12:18 am

    Your getting your cycles mixed up, cycle 26 should see a recovery. Do me a favour and bring yourself up to speed, it will save a lot of typing. This is not the forum for this type of discussion (it is banned) but if you would like to read my paper I will be happy to answer any queries via my blog or email.

  208. Roger Carr says:

    Is this a message, E, M,?

    Sheesh, I step away from the computer for a few hours of Christmas Shopping (we actually had a break in the drenching) and come back to 237 comments…. It’s going to be a long night…

    Is it a message? Well, I suppose it is… We’ve had a wonderful introduction to what life is likely to be like for a few years. Reminds me of what is was like back about 1963 or so. Long cold drenching rains. Days with no sun. Much better inside warm and dry…

    I’ve got a posting up following the storm track as it heads to Utah, and with StormPredator images of the rain. Also some links to the relationship of cold / wet and hot / dry in the western USA with pictures of Lake Mead. We can start watching western lake levels as a “climate barometer”. As they refill, it confirms we’re cooling. Oh, and Accuweather has a warming out for flooding on the storm track…

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/cooling-and-wet-utah/

  209. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 20, 2010 at 2:49 pm
    vukcevic says:
    December 20, 2010 at 1:50 pm
    Good luck with upgrading the SSN, a minor irritation you may have not counted on, my SSN formula

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm

    would have closer correlation during the 19th century.

    We call that confirmation bias. Since it is junk, it doesn’t matter.

    I only wished you good luck, did not say that I would favour such results, hence as per definition it can’t be confirmation bias.
    You are correct in stating that your revision doesn’t matter, since it is clear that the formula reflects reality far closer than the Svalgaard – Schatten disfunctioning delusion of the solar dynamo.
    Last time you corrected my numbers, it again improved correlation of the anomaly formula in achieving the precise timing of the Maunder minimum.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm

    It just shows you data is good, but you are committed to a wrong theory!

  210. Speaking of F10.7 flux, yesterdays adjusted for AU middle reading came in at 75.4. This should make Leif’s graph look pretty sick when he updates.

    I keep my own graph that compares with SC20 (low cycle), if the current spotless day run (6) continues we will see a further reduction in F10.7 flux.

  211. Leif said

    Quote

    When that plasma hits the magnetic field of the Earth, a new current is generated.

    Unquote

    Thats contrary to basic plasma physics, plasmas are excellent conductors. How do you calculate the energy output. The Aurora is only a visible part of a small part of the total energy transfer.

  212. I am fed up with the snow and cold.

    I still gape at the Climate Scientists who say without any sense of irony that they can forecast the climate for centuries into the future, but they are wrong nearly every time they forecast the weather for next week. I remember them saying snow in UK would become a rare event.

    What a pile of rubbish, we should abandon any expenditure on climate research and spend the saved money on snow ploughs, at least they would be of some use!

  213. Grey Lensman says:
    December 21, 2010 at 3:10 am
    …………..
    One of the top people in the field Angelopoulos, estimates the total energy of the two-hour event (magnetic storm/rope) at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 1014) Joules. That’s approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake. Electric current is estimated to 650000A.
    Some of the energy is converted to light (aurora), but in the Arctic’s case, crust is less than 30km thick, lower conductive layers act as a secondary transformer coil (the primary being ionosphere). It is a fact that electric current is induced to some depth, and I think that these electric currents act as ‘degaussing coil’ on the sources of magnetic field in the Arctic area. Fact is that there is a negative correlation between the solar activity and the Arctic magnetic field:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm

    I happen to be first to discover and graph this correlation and possibly provide explanation as outlined above. There is no equivalent effect in the Antarctica, the reason: the geo- properties differences between the Arctic Ocean and the continent of Antarctica.

  214. I’m certainly no scientist, but concerning those antique telescopes I have a question. They have lenses or mirrors made from blown, then polished glass, right? Doesn’t glass act like a liquid, deforming over long periods of time as it seeks a level of “flatness”? Might that make the them less capable at seeing sunspots? Conversely, could the “flow” of the glass act to remove any imperfections in the shape of the lense or mirror, making them able to image more clearly and discern sunspots better?

  215. … although I’m a little tired of the ‘LIA is not related to Maunder Minimum’ folks … all I can say is “lies, damn lies, and statistics”. I find the fact 19th century grain traders and the farmers almanac used ‘sun spot’ statistics with some success as stronger evidence than somebody’s massaged data.

    Now we even have a triage of causal mechanisms outside TSI …GCR cloud formation, UV heat transport to the Upper Atmosphere and Magnetosphere coupling with the Poles. Combine that with my own bag of statistics and ‘compare by graph’ supposition and I think my story is better than the solar cycle deniers. And there is some evidence the marginal effect of TSI’s modest variation can actually make a difference and I refer to the discussion in the BBC’s “Wonders of the Solar System” series.

    I have to admit when you get into the Holocene Optimum, Heinrich Events or the different phases of the Milankovitch cycle … variations in solar activity are just psn in the wind … or that’s how it appears when you look at some of the evidence. CO2 doesn’t even register if there are any ‘magic gas’ people out there.

    I’ve been ready for the cold for a few years because I didn’t quite believe the “Ocean-Climate” folks 10 year delay in cooling but that appears to be close now. Where I live the cold will functionally mean very little, winter is brutal regardless and if the carbon dusting from Chinese Coal Plants help to rapidly degrade the snow in the spring, all the better. I can just sit back and laugh at the UK clearing streets with children’s toys (plastic shovels) and town council’s handing out shovels in the fall :D

  216. “The northern hemisphere is experiencing its fourth consecutive cold winter. The current winter is one of the coldest for a hundred years or more. ”

    Absolute Rubbish. See Canada during last winter for example.

  217. Geoff Sharp says:
    December 21, 2010 at 12:33 am

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 20, 2010 at 10:19 pm

    There is no evidence that 1) we are in a grand minimum and 2) that the factor is systematically different depending on activity [this has been extensively studied for over a century]. Whatever difference the telescope makes is taken care of by the individual factors for each observer.

    But you have said yourself the L&P effect (whatever that is) produces more specks, so no denying we have more specks. You are ignoring the major point, the larger telescopes are picking up smaller specks that get counted.

    Leif says,

    The 17th century technology is not the issue. We have good data and even the original telescopes [still in use] since the 1850s.

    Leif states that the benchmark telescope is similar to this,

    Before 1856 this type of refector telescope had a speculum mirror which only reflected 66% of the light, after 1857 the mirror was silvered, this reflected 90% of the light, therefore observations during the dalton minimum were undertaken with an inferior telescope. Does Leifs benchmark telescope used today have a speculum or silvered mirror?
    By the time silvering became available the Daulton minimum had ended some 15 years earlier, see Leif`s graph,

    It would seem that even in the 1850`s the sun suddenly became more visible using better equipment, remember UK TV 405 lines, now we have high def, all in 50 years.

  218. Geoff Sharp says:
    December 21, 2010 at 12:33 am
    But you have said yourself the L&P effect (whatever that is) produces more specks, so no denying we have more specks.
    So now you are invoking what you called ‘junk science’. L&P does not produce more specks, it converts larger spots to specks. And more and more of these drops out of visibility.

    You are ignoring the major point, the larger telescopes are picking up smaller specks that get counted. Locarno has been the base station that every other station is factored against for decades…it has a 150mm telescope. This is not allowed for in the 0.6 reduction factor that is based on the 80mm telescope.
    You are confusing the factors. There is a 0.6 factor to reduce Locarno to the 80 mm standard telescope [this is what I referred to when I said that each observer has his own factor], then there is another 0.6 factor to reduce the result to Wolf’s scale [to account for Wolf not counting pores].

    It wouldn’t matter what evidence was presented you would argue around it.
    Your confusion is not evidence, but do take this opportunity to be educated on how sunspots are counted.

    There is no point using Keller as a benchmark, you dont have access to his sunspot drawings and are completely unaware of his methods or factors that could be in play.
    The count is not produced by making drawings [Wolf, Wolfer, Waldmeier, Keller, etc did not draw, but counted by simple visible observation], and we are not ‘completely unaware’ of his methods. He states that it is done precisely as in the past [of which we know a great deal]. The whole thing is described here: http://www.rwg.ch/

    I dont like your NOAA graph, once again you make up your own data.
    What kind of nonsense is that? Plotted were the published values.

    If we plot the standard deviation between NOAA and SIDC using NOAA’s published monthly values we see the SIDC is tracking at 0.6 since 2001, there is no deviation or undercounting.
    Even your own plot shows the lower ratios after 2001:

    Tappings conclusions are not backed up with convincing data.
    Tapping’s result is backed up by independent Japanese data and by my independent analysis. Your plot is too crude to show anything. Do a proper analysis.

    Grey Lensman says:
    December 21, 2010 at 3:10 am
    “When that plasma hits the magnetic field of the Earth, a new current is generated.”
    Thats contrary to basic plasma physics, plasmas are excellent conductors.

    I thought that you had grasped the idea. The excellent conductor moving into a magnetic field B with speed V sees an electric field VxB driving a current.

    How do you calculate the energy output. The Aurora is only a visible part of a small part of the total energy transfer.
    See below. The aurora has about half of the energy transferred.

    vukcevic says:
    December 21, 2010 at 4:05 am
    One of the top people in the field Angelopoulos, estimates the total energy of the two-hour event (magnetic storm/rope) at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 1014) Joules. That’s approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake.
    An even greater authority shows you here how to calculate the energy [page 31ff of http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf ], 5E14 Joule, equivalent to a 6.7 magnitude earthquake [not 5.5].

    these electric currents act as ‘degaussing coil’ on the sources of magnetic field in the Arctic area.
    There are, in fact, an almost equal current induced within the Earth’s crust, but the magnetic field does not come from the crust, but is generated in the liquid core where there is no significant induced current. The secular changes in the Arctic and elsewhere are not due to any ‘degaussing’. The correlation is spurious, as most such are.

  219. Robuk says:
    December 21, 2010 at 6:24 am
    Leif states that the benchmark telescope is similar to this,

    Before 1856 this type of refector telescope had a speculum mirror which only
    No, the telescopes used for sunspot counting are usually refractors. The standard telescope [which is still in use] is this http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-Telescope.jpg

    Geoff Sharp says:
    December 21, 2010 at 3:00 am
    Speaking of F10.7 flux, yesterdays adjusted for AU middle reading came in at 75.4. This should make Leif’s graph look pretty sick when he updates.
    The flux is just approaching the trend line shown as the curve hugging the bottom of the graph showing the increase of general background level as expected.

  220. Vukcevic says

    Quote
    One of the top people in the field Angelopoulos, estimates the total energy of the two-hour event (magnetic storm/rope) at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 1014) Joules. That’s approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake. Electric current is estimated to 650000A.

    Unquote

    Thats only during “glow mode” the power input continues but in dark mode. How does that translate in Gigawatts?

    Look like a good correlation to me.

  221. Leif says

    Quote

    he excellent conductor moving into a magnetic field B with speed V sees an electric field VxB driving a current.

    Unquote

    This I believe is called distraction. It does not answer my point that plasma is an excellent conductor. The sun generates the current and it flows to earth along the conductor, where it encounters load. This generates heat.

    The inference that the sun generates current, then produces a plasma that reaches earth, which then generates a mirror current is unique, totally contrary to plasma physics.

  222. Was it not that heat and also pressure demagnetize?. Please do not forget that wherever there is magnetism (and specially in fridge magnets)there is electricity at work, at the same time and at a phase angle of 90 degrees. In the case of the fridge magnet, if made from magnetite, it happens between FeO and Fe2O3. Magnets are commonly made from a few metals which share an also common characteristic. Jumping valences 2,3 .

  223. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 21, 2010 at 8:20 am
    ……………
    1. I quoted NASA’s numbers, but if you say 6.7 magnitude (30 stronger than 5.5 magnitude on the Richter scale) that is fine, your numbers are reliable, but your conclusions I often wander about.
    2. Magnetic ropes/ (wrongly named electric current loops) have their base attached to the sun 149,000,000 km away, but the Arctic is less than 6,000 km from wherever field is generated. In addition I know exactly how ‘degaussing coil’ works.
    3. You really have to start questioning current understanding of the GMF. Antarctica’s (north MP) is decaying faster than combination of Hudson Bay – Siberia, or either of two individually, whichever data you take (NOAA, Gufm or CALS7K), in addition the Hudson Bay is declining and the Siberia is gaining strength. Logic says it can’t be a single dynamo, and forget about harmonics, that is only a cover for false hypothesis.
    Therefore I propose that there are 3 conical vortices, and they behave independently: Siberia (getting stronger), Antarctica (getting weaker); these two are probably far down, while the Hudson Bay is likely to be very shallow (getting weaker with a reverse correlation to the solar activity – ‘degaussed’). Here are the details:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm

    I don’t expect you to agree today, tomorrow or the day after, but it might be that your young grandson’s generation may come to accept it as a more realistic proposition.

  224. Grey Lensman says:
    December 21, 2010 at 8:43 am
    …………..
    Known electric power (30KV x 0.65MA) , round number 20TW, for two hours (=40TWh), but stand to be corrected.

  225. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 21, 2010 at 8:20 am
    There is a 0.6 factor to reduce Locarno to the 80 mm standard telescope [this is what I referred to when I said that each observer has his own factor], then there is another 0.6 factor to reduce the result to Wolf’s scale [to account for Wolf not counting pores].
    I didn’t explain this too well. Trying again: since 1860 Wolf used an even smaller telescope [his 'handheld' - because he was often traveling]. Wolfer used the 80 mm scope since 1877. The various factors are:
    suppose Wolf had a count with his handheld of 20, then that count was multiplied by 1.5 making it 30 to compare it to the 80 mm. To get to what Wolfer counted with the 80 mm, you divide the 30 by 0.6, giving 50. So, Wolfer using the 80 mm counting every little speck he could see, would have counted 50 where Wolf would have counted 20 with his handheld. All Wolf’s counts between 1860 and 1893 were done with the handheld [which in a sense is the true Wolf standard].
    Or to take a recent example: This past November, the ratio between SIDC and Locarno was 0.584. The counts [on the same days] were Loc=33.44, SIDC=19.69. Now, the SIDC count can be converted to Wolfer’s scale by dividing by 0.6, so Wolfer would have counted 19.69/0.6 = 33, which Wolf with his handheld would have seen as 33/1.5 = 22.

  226. Perhaps a bit OT, but this issue of magnetism and electricity reminds me the current colloquial expression of “narrow-mindedness”: It is really meaningful. As our brains work on electricity, the narrower its phase angle the lesser its “emission field”, then the heavier and more somber our thoughts.

  227. Eric (skeptic):

    I’m not sure what you mean by catastrophists (sensitivity > 4 °C ?), but there are two issues here. First, the observed warming is consistent with the usual range of estimates of the climate sensitivity, and the usual range of estimates of the net climate forcing (basically CO2 + Methane + black carbon – aerosol direct & indirect effects. If you think the climate sensitivity is lower than 2 °C, that means you think the aerosol forcing is smaller than the usual estimates. Why do you think that?
    Second, the upper ocean adjusts pretty quickly to the atmosphere CO2 concentration, so no one who understands the carbon cycle believes that a sudden halt in CO2 output would result in a quick draw-down of CO2. Here’s the standard reference: http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2009.ann_rev_tail.pdf
    If we were stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere today, it would take several hundred years before concentrations fell to half-way between todays values and preindustrial values (unless we pay to pump the stuff out of the air and store it somewhere very stable).

  228. Can somebody perhaps just tell me what is the SI unit of the number displayed on the y-axis of figure 9? What were they measuring 200 years ago and what was the accuracy of that measurement?

  229. Grey Lensman says:
    December 21, 2010 at 8:43 am
    How does that translate in Gigawatts?
    About 100 GW over an area of 100 million square kilometers.

    The sun generates the current and it flows to earth along the conductor, where it encounters load. This generates heat.
    No, the current does not flow to the Earth. The neutral plasma does. When the neutral plasma meets the Earth’s magnetic field, a current is induced in the Earth’s magnetosphere.

    The inference that the sun generates current, then produces a plasma that reaches earth, which then generates a mirror current is unique, totally contrary to plasma physics.
    There is no mirror current, it is a new current generated locally at the Earth.

    vukcevic says:
    December 21, 2010 at 9:22 am
    In addition I know exactly how ‘degaussing coil’ works.
    But, apparently not how the Earth works.

    You really have to start questioning current understanding of the GMF.
    Why should I do that? The GMF is generated in the core as the result of a very chaotic process with multiple convections cells each generating their own magnetic field resulting in a very jumbled and irregular field. As you move away from any complicated field, it always becomes more regular, in the limit perfectly dipolar.

    I don’t expect you to agree today, tomorrow or the day after,
    I don’t expect you to learn today, tomorrow, etc

    but it might be that your young grandson’s generation may come to accept it as a more realistic proposition.
    It is already wrong. You might begin to become a little less self-glorifying.

  230. Leif Svalgaard says: December 21, 2010 at 9:52 am
    The GMF is generated in the core as the result of a very chaotic process with multiple convections cells each generating their own magnetic field resulting in a very jumbled and irregular field.
    I am tempted to say nonsense. Earth rotation is pretty regular, lunar and solar tides are also of perfect regularity, inner sphere is either solid or very high viscosity magma, none prone to chaotic movement.
    Why now multiple cells ? Two or three conical vortices can explain whole process. Even the less well behaved Earth’s stratosphere occasionally falls into precisely same pattern as described here:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm

    and here:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF-PV.htm

    Science evolves; dogma does not, it simply dies.

    Your induction idea is wrong too.
    About 100 GW (?! ) over an area of 100 million square kilometers (?!).
    See numbers here:

    Faraday will tell you that induced current will be concentrated in an outer ring not in a disk.

  231. HenryP says:
    December 21, 2010 at 9:51 am
    Can somebody perhaps just tell me what is the SI unit of the number displayed on the y-axis of figure 9? What were they measuring 200 years ago and what was the accuracy of that measurement?
    It has no units as it is a count. Roughly twice the number of sunspots visible on the Sun at any given time. 200 years ago, the uncertainty was about a factor of two, but can be reduced somewhat by also including the effects on sunspots on the Earth, so is probably better than a factor of two for the high count, but likely not the low counts, e.g solar cycle 5, where we actually have very few measurements.

  232. Dan Kirk-Davidoff says:
    December 21, 2010 at 9:38 am
    I’m not sure what you mean by catastrophists (sensitivity > 4 °C ?), but there are two issues here. First, the observed warming is consistent with the usual range of estimates of the climate sensitivity, and the usual range of estimates of the net climate forcing (basically CO2 + Methane + black carbon – aerosol direct & indirect effects. If you think the climate sensitivity is lower than 2 °C, that means you think the aerosol forcing is smaller than the usual estimates. Why do you think that?
    Second, the upper ocean adjusts pretty quickly to the atmosphere CO2 concentration, so no one who understands the carbon cycle believes that a sudden halt in CO2 output would result in a quick draw-down of CO2. Here’s the standard reference: http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2009.ann_rev_tail.pdf
    If we were stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere today, it would take several hundred years before concentrations fell to half-way between todays values and preindustrial values (unless we pay to pump the stuff out of the air and store it somewhere very stable).

    Maybe you should read up a bit on your model forcings.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/19/model-charged-with-excessive-use-of-forcing/

  233. thanks Leif,
    I gather that 200 years ago, to do the measurement, they projected an image of the sun on a screen and do an actual count (was that done every day?). And you say it can be reasonably accurately determined that compared to how we do it now (how?) they missed 50%?

  234. vukcevic says:
    December 21, 2010 at 10:29 am
    I am tempted to say nonsense. Earth rotation is pretty regular, lunar and solar tides are also of perfect regularity, inner sphere is either solid or very high viscosity magma, none prone to chaotic movement.
    The magnetic field is generated in the outer core which has the same viscosity as water. Convecting water is highly chaotic and turbulent [boil some water and have a look]. Same with solar convection zone.

    Why now multiple cells ?
    Because that is what we observe. The core-mantle boundary is very lumpy.

    Science evolves; dogma does not, it simply dies.
    A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. And pseudo-science never dies, no matter what the lack of evidence or understanding [or perhaps just because of that].

    Your induction idea is wrong too.
    Same comment about a little knowledge.
    About 100 GW (?! ) over an area of 100 million square kilometers (?!).
    Measured energy input for Kp=5 is 100 GW over the hemisphere. The extent of the area where the precipitation occurs is a ring [actually, two - one in each hemisphere] that can cover [for a large storm] the area I mentioned. For quiet periods the area and the energy is an order of magnitude smaller.

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/index.html

    Read my explanation of the calculation in the link I gave you.

    Faraday will tell you that induced current will be concentrated in an outer ring not in a disk.
    The current comes from the magnetosphere, and is concentrated into the auroral oval. A similar oval is induced at depth of a few tens of kilometers. Since the magnetic field is generated in the core, there are no lasting effects from these ‘telluric currents’. The heating is minuscule. Try to calculate Joule per cubic meter and find out yourself. All this is well-known textbook stuff. You can learn something on this blog by paying attention.

  235. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 21, 2010 at 8:32 am

    Robuk says:

    December 21, 2010 at 6:24 am
    Leif states that the benchmark telescope is similar to this,

    Before 1856 this type of refector telescope had a speculum mirror which only

    Leif says,

    No, the telescopes used for sunspot counting are usually refractors. The standard telescope [which is still in use] is this

    Leif COME CLEAN, this is the telescope you refere to, it was built in 1847,

    http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/groundup/lesson/scopes/harvard/index.php

    to late to observe the low sunspot count of the Maunda minimum as shown on your graph, which ended around 1835.

    All observations prior to that date must have been made with inferior speculum reflector telescopes or inferior smaller refractor telescopes.
    You are counting sunspots today with superior equipment, unless you can show the exact date these new larger refractors were widely used by observers and that must proceed the year 1800 then you cannot compare todays observations with a telescope like the harvard 15 inch refractor built around 1845. You are comparing what you could see on a 405 line TV of the 50`s with todays Hi Def tv`s.

  236. Dan Kirk-Davidoff says:
    December 21, 2010 at 9:38 am

    “so no one who understands the carbon cycle believes that a sudden halt in CO2 output would result in a quick draw-down of CO2. ”

    Irrigating the Sahara and Australian deserts and planting trees could get 8Gtc/year.

  237. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 21, 2010 at 12:23 pm
    …………..
    You got magma viscosity wrong, even Wikipedia knows that, ever seen film of magma coming down volcano slope, not exactly as rush of water.
    Induction would happen in the layer of highest conductivity not one you whish it to be. As far as numbers are concerned they are given by NASA for the Arctic as 30kV and o.65MA:

    hence ~ 40TWh .
    The energy is not necessarily converted to heat, two magnetic fields acting against each other produce heath only in so called ‘reconnection’ (currents short circuit), it is either mechanical movement which may cause tremors (as investigated by NASA) or more likely miniscule effect on the originator of the magnetic field itself, the Earth’s rotation or LOD, hence its direct correlation with solar activity, and rise of a hypothesis that LOD is cause of GW.
    I think more arguments you produce, less relevant they are, so here I agree to disagree; feel free and go ahead with whatever you think it may make your case.

  238. Dr. Svalgaard, Can you update your chart for those of us who follow the 10.7 values? Yours is the most succinct and informative IMHO. TIA!

  239. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 21, 2010 at 8:20 am

    There is a 0.6 factor to reduce Locarno to the 80 mm standard telescope [this is what I referred to when I said that each observer has his own factor], then there is another 0.6 factor to reduce the result to Wolf’s scale [to account for Wolf not counting pores].

    I think maybe you are the confused one. In the past you have maintained that the 150mm & 80mm telescopes with the same magnification of 64x see the same. Now you are suggesting an extra factor is now applied to bring them together?

    I think what is happening is that on some days Locarno gets overridden by the other stations, this occurs when the deviation between stations is bigger. It can be add hock with other days showing the SIDC finished value at Locarno x 0.6. Its a mess really but surprisingly the difference between NOAA and SIDC remains around .6 since 2001, maybe not by accident? It might be interesting to look at the Locarno raw figures over a longer period and see how they track against the SIDC value month to month.

  240. HenryP says:
    December 21, 2010 at 12:17 pm
    I gather that 200 years ago, to do the measurement, they projected an image of the sun on a screen and do an actual count (was that done every day?). And you say it can be reasonably accurately determined that compared to how we do it now (how?) they missed 50%?
    Since about 1850 sunspots have been counted [every day] by visual inspection [and often not by projection, but with a filter]. Before that we’ll take any and all observation by whichever means and try to calibrate them in modern terms. There are other means of calibration the sunspot count – counting aurorae, observing wiggles in the Earth’s magnetic field, measuring radioactive isotopes in ice and tree rings, in meteorites, and more. As we go back in time, we are not ‘missing’ counts, they just become more uncertain ans we are not sure if a count of 75 back then is actually that or any other value between 50 and a 100 [or worse].

    Robuk says:
    December 21, 2010 at 1:00 pm
    You are counting sunspots today with superior equipment, unless you can show the exact, etc…
    I’m not sure what kind of learning disability you have, but sunspots today are counted [and/or reduced to] what observers back in 1850s would have seen with the telescope I have shown you [and which is still being used for that purpose]. Astronomers deliberately use ‘inferior’ telescopes for two reasons: 1) to stay compatible with the old counts, and 2) once the telescope is ‘good enough’ improving its resolution does not show anymore spots, because there is a minimum size to what we call a spot. As I said, you can count people across the street by just looking. Using a high-powered telescope will nor show any more people.

    Mom2girls says:
    December 21, 2010 at 4:31 pm
    Dr. Svalgaard, Can you update your chart for those of us who follow the 10.7 values? Yours is the most succinct and informative IMHO. TIA!
    Thanks for the encouraging words. I’ll try to find time Real Soon Now.

    vukcevic says:
    December 21, 2010 at 2:55 pm
    You got magma viscosity wrong, even Wikipedia knows that, ever seen film of magma coming down volcano slope, not exactly as rush of water.
    As I said [too] little knowledge can be dangerous. You are a good example of that. And you also have a learning disability, it seems. The material in the outer core is not ‘magma’. The viscosity of water is about 0.001-0.002 Pa s, the core at the mantle boundary about 0.001 Pa s. [GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 29, NO. 8, 1217, 10.1029/2001GL014392, 2002].

    As far as numbers are concerned they are given by NASA for the Arctic as 30kV and o.65MA, hence ~ 40TWh .
    Which is several hundred times too high. You quoted a ‘top man’ in saying that the energy was 5*10^14 Joule. This number is correct [I got the same number back in 1973]. Now, Mr expert in de-gaussing and Faraday/Maxwell, please tell us how many Joules, 40 TWh is.

  241. This is showing a correlation between warming/cooling with the activity level of the Sun and the strength of the magnetic field. Beats the old CO2 concentration correlation with warming/cooling – talk about the elephant in the middle of the room… This is the kind of thing we need – careful monitoring of the physical variables over a long period of time. Of course, we must to have “accurate” monitoring without political fudging of the data – something that seems to be difficult to achieve…

  242. Geoff Sharp says:
    December 21, 2010 at 6:29 pm
    I think maybe you are the confused one. In the past you have maintained that the 150mm & 80mm telescopes with the same magnification of 64x see the same. Now you are suggesting an extra factor is now applied to bring them together?
    There is indeed some confusion about this. Waldmeier always claimed that a factor of 0.6 was necessary to bring Locarno to agree with Zurich’s 80 mm telescope. The only reasonable interpretation is that if you take Locarno values and multiply by 0.6, you get Wolfer values [actually Waldmeier values]. This is verified by the November values I gave. But the Wolfer values are actually already reduced by 0.6 to get Wolf numbers. So, if Wolf counted 24, Wolfer would have counted 24/0.6 = 40, but he would have reported 24 [to match Wolf]. Then Waldmeier [and my recent test] claims if you take Locarno and multiply by 0.6 you also get 24, so Locarno must also have seen 40, as Wolfer did with the smaller telescope. In other words: 0.6*Locarno = Waldmeier, and Wolf = 0.6*Waldmeier [or Wolfer - setting aside the weighting for a moment], so Wolf = 0.6*(0.6*Locarno), but SIDC is also 0.6*Locarno, which means they are not on the Wolf scale. I’m researching the original documents to try to see where this disconnect originates.

    difference between NOAA and SIDC remains around .6 since 2001, maybe not by accident?
    They strive to align themselves. But also note that the ratio was 10% higher [0.66] before 2001, attesting to SIDC undercounting.

  243. vukcevic says:
    December 21, 2010 at 2:55 pm
    You got magma viscosity wrong, even Wikipedia knows that, ever seen film of magma coming down volcano slope, not exactly as rush of water.
    As I said [too] little knowledge can be dangerous. You are a good example of that. And you also have a learning disability, it seems. The material in the outer core is not ‘magma’. The viscosity of water is about 0.001-0.002 Pa s, the core at the mantle boundary about 0.001 Pa s. [GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 29, NO. 8, 1217, 10.1029/2001GL014392, 2002].

  244. Mom2girls says:
    December 21, 2010 at 4:31 pm
    Dr. Svalgaard, Can you update your chart for those of us who follow the 10.7 values? Yours is the most succinct and informative IMHO. TIA!
    Updated now.

  245. vukcevic says:
    December 21, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    “”The energy is not necessarily converted to heat, two magnetic fields acting against each other produce heath only in so called ‘reconnection’ (currents short circuit), it is either mechanical movement which may cause tremors (as investigated by NASA) or more likely miniscule effect on the originator of the magnetic field itself, the Earth’s rotation or LOD, hence its direct correlation with solar activity, and rise of a hypothesis that LOD is cause of GW.””
    Reply;
    My bet would be on homopolar generator effects (MHD) producing electromotive forces to shorten the LOD, at the same time as generating an increase in pole to equator static charge, that results in less cloudiness in the tropics, giving rise to increased radiation penetration SW warming not related to changes, or lack there of in TSI but coronal hole affected changes to the solar wind.

    Thus reflecting the warming in sync with both LOD shifts, and CME activity levels.

  246. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 21, 2010 at 8:12 pm

    There is indeed some confusion about this. Waldmeier always claimed that a factor of 0.6 was necessary to bring Locarno to agree with Zurich’s 80 mm telescope.

    This post and one previous is the first time I have heard you talk about a double step, I think there is much more to uncover. How many steps are in place is hard to fathom, it would be good to get to the bottom of this. The Waldmeier weighting step as you say looks to occur at 1945 (the proxy records backing this up), later in 1981 Locarno takes over with a bigger telescope that is not controlled by Waldmeier as the SIDC are now in place. On the whole there does not look to be an extra reduction factor in place for the bigger telescope although on some days the Locarno value has extra discount. I did some more checking on the Locarno values and the raw values look to be discounted about 0.6 to arrive at the SIDC finished count, but a thorough analysis should be done.

    So there is a possibility of three increases since Wolf’s day.

    1. The higher speck ratio this cycle not being allowed for with Wolfer’s 0.6 factor.

    2. Waldmeier step for weighting.

    3. More specks observed when moving from the 80mm to 150mm telescope.

    But in the back of my mind there are a few dilemmas, that email from SIDC stating Wolfer was actually using the bigger telescope which was available and included when he introduced his 0.6 factor. Two reports I have read that states Wolfer introduced the weighting system (that you have mentioned Waldmeier thought also) and although Waldmeier reports the 80mm telescope was used his 3 observatories all had the 150mm telescope.

  247. Speechless, Lief says that when I switch on an appliance,it generates its own current!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    How do the “ropey” things, to use the “scientific” term rather than the laymans Birkland current, get here. Pulled from the sun by gravity.

    By seeing the link, observing real effects, we determine that rise and fall in current flow between the Earth and the Sun, can effect temperature.

    Merry Christmas all, off to have a warming drink

  248. To Crosspatch,

    Joseph D’Aleo observed that these type of cycles come in pairs.

    See mationalforestlawblog.com

    October 2009 newsletter under my name. Begins around page 27 of paper “Low Sunspot…

    I did a short interpretation of his work in that section.

  249. richardholle says:
    December 21, 2010 at 9:46 pm
    …………..
    On number of occasions I suggested that the solar activity (mainly the magnetic storms) act as an electro-magnetic brake on the Earth’s rotation, as confirmed by the correlation of the GMF at the North pole and LOD :

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm

    If climate changes are to be fully understood than all Earth’s layers from magneto-, strato-, atmo-, hidro- all the way to litho-sphere and even further down, should be considered as interacting parts of a complex system.

  250. Grey Lensman says:
    December 22, 2010 at 1:49 am
    when I switch on an appliance,it generates its own current
    When I mount my old bicycle and begin to pedal it generates enough current to power a headlight [required by law].
    How do the “ropey” things, to use the “scientific” term rather than the laymans Birkland current, get here. Pulled from the sun by gravity.
    How does a spacecraft get to the Moon? Powered by an initial explosion ["we have ignition"] and coasting the rest of the way. Coronal Mass Ejections are no different.

    vukcevic says:
    December 22, 2010 at 5:01 am
    “I think there will be several low cycles, but this is guesswork.”
    I am pleased you have to come round to recognise value of my formula

    Your formula has no value.

    Geoff Sharp says:
    December 21, 2010 at 11:41 pm
    But in the back of my mind there are a few dilemmas, that email from SIDC stating Wolfer was actually using the bigger telescope which was available and included when he introduced his 0.6 factor.
    Instead of relying on an email from SIDC just read Wolfer’s, Brunner’s, and Waldmeier’s own words on this. They all categorically and repeatedly state that the old 80 mm telescope is used. SIDC and others are confused on this because other telescopes were present, but used for other things [prominences, etc]. Sunspot counting has ALWAYS [from Wolfer on through to Keller and Friedli]] been done with the SAME physical telescope [not just a similar one].

  251. Leif Svalgaard demolishes vukcevic

    LS. I think there will be several low cycles, but this is guesswork.
    v. I am pleased you have to come round to recognise value of my formula
    LS. Your formula has no value.
    v. Strange you should agree with something that ‘has no value’.

    Thank you for all your challenges, they were more productive than I ever thought possible.
    Marry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and your family; may all your wishes come true.
    Peace and harmony among men.

  252. Hey mod
    Can you change that to Merry Christmas (in my previous post)
    I should disable spell checker !
    Merry Christmas to you and all mods and especially to Anthony and family.

  253. Vuk etc. says:
    December 22, 2010 at 10:31 am
    LS. Your formula has no value.
    v. Strange you should agree with something that ‘has no value’.

    Your formula is just curve fitting to old data and as such has no predictive value apart from what is already evident from the curves [an approximately 100 year 'wave' that everybody has known about for the past 150 years]: http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html

  254. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 22, 2010 at 12:24 pm
    an approximately 100 year ‘wave’ that everybody has known about for the past 150 years.
    Absolutely.
    In addition now, thanks to my sterling effort, you know why that ‘100 year wave’ is there, with the extra benefit of being able to extrapolate.
    “I think there will be several low cycles, but this is guesswork.”
    I also think there will be several low cycles, but no need for anyone to fall back on the guesswork.
    SSNs are old hat anyway, see you in the New year for more magnetic challenges, I may add more details:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm

  255. vukcevic says:
    December 22, 2010 at 1:40 pm
    In addition now, thanks to my sterling effort,
    People who self-aggrandize like that quickly move to a very low point on my scale of worthiness.
    you know why that ‘100 year wave’ is there
    Already Wolf suggested Jupiter/Saturn and was as wrong as you are. The difference is that he eventually realized that.

  256. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 22, 2010 at 1:58 pm
    ………….
    Absolutely. I’ve never seen you promoting your views or papers as the ‘gospel truth’.
    Your scale of estimation is reflection of your subjective values, and matters very little or none, to anyone else.
    Wolf was talking about gravity, but you failed to notice, I am talking about electro-magnetic feedbacks within heliosphere. Two radically different things.
    Not realizing that after hundreds of comments, or even worse, realizing it but distorting my comments, in order to invalidate them, wouldn’t put it very high on anyone’s scale of worthiness. But I do not have such scales. Everyone deserves respect, until they forfeit it by committing one or more of ‘The Seven Deadly Sins’.

  257. vukcevic says:
    December 22, 2010 at 3:14 pm
    I’ve never seen you promoting your views or papers as the ‘gospel truth’.
    Of course, you haven’t, because I don’t do that. I don’t believe in gospel truth. And I don’t ‘promote my papers’ e.g. by cross posting references to such promotion on several blogs.

    Wolf was talking about gravity, but you failed to notice, I am talking about electro-magnetic feedbacks within heliosphere.
    With even less effect; at least with tidal interactions there would be a chance.

    Everyone deserves respect, until they forfeit it by committing one or more of ‘The Seven Deadly Sins’.
    I don’t know what they might be and to what extent you have committed them, but your failure to learn means that scientific respect comes out low.

  258. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 21, 2010 at 7:40 pm

    HenryP says:
    December 21, 2010 at 12:17 pm
    I gather that 200 years ago, to do the measurement, they projected an image of the sun on a screen and do an actual count (was that done every day?). And you say it can be reasonably accurately determined that compared to how we do it now (how?) they missed 50%?
    Since about 1850 sunspots have been counted [every day] by visual inspection [and often not by projection, but with a filter]. Before that we’ll take any and all observation by whichever means and try to calibrate them in modern terms. There are other means of calibration the sunspot count – counting aurorae, observing wiggles in the Earth’s magnetic field, measuring radioactive isotopes in ice and tree rings, in meteorites, and more. As we go back in time, we are not ‘missing’ counts, they just become more uncertain ans we are not sure if a count of 75 back then is actually that or any other value between 50 and a 100 [or worse].

    Robuk says:
    December 21, 2010 at 1:00 pm
    You are counting sunspots today with superior equipment, unless you can show the exact, etc…
    I’m not sure what kind of learning disability you have, but sunspots today are counted [and/or reduced to] what observers back in 1850s would have seen with the telescope I have shown you [and which is still being used for that purpose]. Astronomers deliberately use ‘inferior’ telescopes for two reasons: 1) to stay compatible with the old counts, and 2) once the telescope is ‘good enough’ improving its resolution does not show anymore spots,

    ====================================================

    The telescope you show wasn`t to my knowledge made available until the mid 1850`s, I believe the Maunda and the Daulton minimum were over by that time.

    Johann Rudolf Wolf born in 1816 reconstructed the sunspot record back to 1749 using the geomagnetic record as his baseline. Wolf used this background scale to adjust the values taken before 1847 to align with his count method. During his time Wolf did not count small spots and specks

    He was trying to match his records with the past, the prior records were recorded through telescopes of lesser technology. Even so he had to make adjustments to the older record.
    His own telescope only saw the minor spots/specks when conditions were good.

    Leif is saying that we match modern sunspot observations with the past by using what was a very advanced telescope developed around the 1850`s, after the event.

    I ask why Wolf did not consider this brilliant idea and match his observations with an earlier Newton telescope, he chose to ADJUST the past observations to match his own instead, where have we heard that before.

    Leif says,

    Once the telescope is ‘good enough’ improving its resolution does not show anymore spots, because there is a minimum size to what we call a spot.

    So how big was a visible spot seen through a Newton telescope, is this classed as the minimum size when comparing the modern count, is this Newton classed as good enough.

    Leif, you are just trying to disprove the link between sunspots and temperature.

    Anyway if galileo and Newton could only see large to medium size spots and the lack of them coincided with the most prelonged cold period in a thousand years, that indicates a dormant sun is directly linked to a cooling earth. It doesn`t matter about the number of small spots and specks, just because you don`t understand why can`t take away the fact that when there is a lack of sun spots it turns cold.

    Leif just for fun, why not build a replica Newton and check it out.

  259. Robuk says:
    December 22, 2010 at 4:52 pm
    So how big was a visible spot seen through a Newton telescope, is this classed as the minimum size when comparing the modern count, is this Newton classed as good enough.
    Many of the early 17th century telescopes were very good. Here are some drawings:
    1625: http://obs.astro.ucla.edu/sunspots/schex3.jpg
    1644: http://obs.astro.ucla.edu/sunspots/hvex3.jpg

    From ~1850 until this very day, sunspots are counted with the same telescope. Trying to adjust the older values to the same scale as that telescope is challenging [as has only been partly successful]. This has nothing to with what telescopes were used in the past. We use all available data, no matter where they come from.

    Leif just for fun, why not build a replica Newton and check it out.
    No need to, we even have Galileo’s original, but it doesn’t matter as I have explained so many times.

    can`t take away the fact that when there is a lack of sun spots it turns cold.
    Ah, there is your agenda. Well, there is no evidence of that if we go even further back in time [using cosmic rays]. But regardless of what you believe, the calibration of sunspot numbers has nothing to do with temperatures.
    Here is a hypothesis worthy of many commenters: during the LIA it was so cold that rimefrost http://www.flickr.com/photos/ulri/92522806/ was forming on the lenses, preventing sunspots to be seen, thus proving conclusively a connection between sunspots and cold.

  260. Geoff Sharp says:
    December 21, 2010 at 11:41 pm
    Two reports I have read that states Wolfer introduced the weighting system (that you have mentioned Waldmeier thought also) and although Waldmeier reports the 80mm telescope was used his 3 observatories all had the 150mm telescope.
    Since I’m trying to track down where this notion comes from, I would like to get references to those two reports [other than the ones I have already given]. That the observatories ALSO had other telescopes does not nullify that the 80 mm was the one used for visual sunspot counts in Zurich, compounded with the fact that every observer categorically and repeatedly state so.

  261. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 22, 2010 at 5:47 pm

    Geoff Sharp says:
    December 21, 2010 at 11:41 pm
    Two reports I have read that states Wolfer introduced the weighting system (that you have mentioned Waldmeier thought also) and although Waldmeier reports the 80mm telescope was used his 3 observatories all had the 150mm telescope.
    —————————-
    Since I’m trying to track down where this notion comes from, I would like to get references to those two reports [other than the ones I have already given].

    A Czech paper.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980BAICz..31..267K

    Your reference to Waldmeier’s knowledge of a Wolfer weighting scheme sept 19 2;31am HERE.

    Peter Tayla writes HERE.

    Waldmeier’s 1968 observatory report listing 3 /150 mm refractors but no mention of the 80mm wolf telescope HERE.

  262. Geoff Sharp says:
    December 22, 2010 at 7:57 pm
    A Czech paper.
    Peter Taylor

    Both of these are just parroting Waldmeier’s 1968 report. No new information.

    Your reference to Waldmeier’s knowledge of a Wolfer weighting scheme
    Waldmeier did not know of Wolfer’s scheme [Wolfer didn't have one as I show in my recent AGU presentation http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202010%20SH53B-03.pdf ], but invented the scheme himself.

    Waldmeier’s 1968 observatory report listing 3 /150 mm refractors but no mention of the 80mm wolf telescope

    Here is Waldmeier’s last report [1978]:
    page 1: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Waldmeier-1978-1.jpg
    page 2: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Waldmeier-1978-2.jpg

    I translate from page 2, line 9 ff:
    “The best one can do and also must do, is to preserve the homogeneity. To obtain that goal even today we use for our observations the telescope that Wolf used, and the counting technique has been transferred from one generation of observers to the next by several years of parallel observations.
    The telescope used for determination of the Relative Sunspot Numbers comes from the shop of Fraunhofer and has an objective lens with aperture 8 cm and with 110 cm focal length, with an eye piece that yields a magnification of 64.”
    Every annual report since the 1890s with the definitive sunspot numbers for each year repeat that singular fact. As is clear from Waldmeier’s report this is deliberate and necessary to ensure the homogeneity of the series. I hope we can close that chapter now and accept the words of the observers on this point.

  263. Leif,

    Conclusions,

    Combined with daily observations by Picard, La hire, Eimmart and others, information on more than 200 days per year during much of the maunda minimum is now available. It indicates the probability of failing to observe sunspots during these years is SMALL.

    Here again we have possibly flawed reconstructions when the actual observational data was available.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/g621x2918n7l05q6/fulltext.pdf

    From galileo`s time, telescopes were improving, what could be seen in the Dalton could not possable have been seen in the maunda, the count went up.

    Again it doesn`t matter about small spots it is about what could not be seen on the sun in the maunda and what was felt on the ground at that time. With the equipment they had they saw no spots, this information came from the top scientists of the day, what they couldn`t see doesn`t matter.

    Comment on this study.

  264. Robuk says:
    December 23, 2010 at 3:49 am
    Combined with daily observations by Picard, La hire, Eimmart and others, information on more than 200 days per year during much of the maunda minimum is now available. It indicates the probability of failing to observe sunspots during these years is SMALL.
    Of course, nobody disputes that. In fact, I argue [speculate] that the spots were completely invisible and nowhere to be seen. See slide 22 ff of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf

  265. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 23, 2010 at 12:02 am

    Geoff Sharp says:
    December 22, 2010 at 7:57 pm
    A Czech paper.
    Peter Taylor
    Both of these are just parroting Waldmeier’s 1968 report. No new information.

    Chicken and egg I guess, but there was a link that might be worth checking (McKinnon 1987). But did see your Wolfer sunspot drawing, more of that would be good.

    Your reference to Waldmeier’s knowledge of a Wolfer weighting scheme
    Waldmeier did not know of Wolfer’s scheme [Wolfer didn't have one as I show in my recent AGU presentation http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202010%20SH53B-03.pdf ], but invented the scheme himself.

    Yep…just going on your comment. You are supposed to be the man?

    Waldmeier’s 1968 observatory report listing 3 /150 mm refractors but no mention of the 80mm wolf telescope

    Here is Waldmeier’s last report [1978]:
    page 1: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Waldmeier-1978-1.jpg
    page 2: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Waldmeier-1978-2.jpg

    I translate from page 2, line 9 ff:
    “The best one can do and also must do, is to preserve the homogeneity. To obtain that goal even today we use for our observations the telescope that Wolf used, and the counting technique has been transferred from one generation of observers to the next by several years of parallel observations.
    The telescope used for determination of the Relative Sunspot Numbers comes from the shop of Fraunhofer and has an objective lens with aperture 8 cm and with 110 cm focal length, with an eye piece that yields a magnification of 64.”
    Every annual report since the 1890s with the definitive sunspot numbers for each year repeat that singular fact. As is clear from Waldmeier’s report this is deliberate and necessary to ensure the homogeneity of the series. I hope we can close that chapter now and accept the words of the observers on this point.

    Perhaps you are too trusting. The sunspot count is a bit of a boys club, surely you don’t believe everything you read?

    There is good reason for doubt, the data is not solid. But lets get back to your earlier statement. You say there are two factors in place, a 0.6 factor that Wolfer introduced to align his new counting method with Wolf, and then another 0.6 factor on top for the change in telescopes when Locarno took over. I do not see any evidence to back up your statement?

  266. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 23, 2010 at 4:10 am

    Of course, nobody disputes that. In fact, I argue [speculate] that the spots were completely invisible and nowhere to be seen. See slide 22 ff of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf

    Robuk has some valid points. The telescopes may not have picked up the micro specks as seen today, but they were diligent and still recorded very little. There is no doubt the Maunder was a very deep minimum. I cant understand why you invoke L&P (whatever that is) to describe grand minima. You say there was isotope modulation during the Maunder, but how does it rate when compared with active times like recent decades past?

  267. Geoff Sharp says:
    December 23, 2010 at 4:51 am
    Chicken and egg I guess, but there was a link that might be worth checking (McKinnon 1987).
    The second slide of http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Seminar-14Sept.pdf is from McKinnon [quoting Waldmeier 1961: Sunspot numbers, 1610-1985 : based on "The sunspot activity in the years 1610-1960" by Waldmeier]

    “I hope we can close that chapter now and accept the words of the observers on this point.”
    Perhaps you are too trusting. The sunspot count is a bit of a boys club, surely you don’t believe everything you read?

    like Wolf’s number for the Dalton? Yes, in case of the annual reports, I do believe them.

    There is good reason for doubt, the data is not solid.
    There is no reason to doubt that the 8 cm was used throughout. The data is what we have and we have to work with that.

    But lets get back to your earlier statement. You say there are two factors in place, a 0.6 factor that Wolfer introduced to align his new counting method with Wolf, and then another 0.6 factor on top for the change in telescopes when Locarno took over. I do not see any evidence to back up your statement?
    There is a bit of mystery here. If Locarno with a factor of 0.6 matches Zurich that also has a factor of 0.6, then Locarno (13.5 cm telescope) and Zurich (8 cm) see the same things and the telescope size doesn’t matter: 0.6 * Locarno [13.5] = 0.6 * Wolfer [8] = 1 * Wolf [8]. I prefer to think that there should be a difference because of the different size telescope, so the trick is to figure out what Waldmeier means when he says that Locarno has a factor of 0.6. I’m prepared to accept that there is no hidden factor of 0.6 and that the size of the telescope doesn’t matter. The Locarno observer before Cortesi was Rapp, and Waldmeier says that the factor for Rapp was 0.8. That would be consistent with a larger scope seeing more spots. In 1957, Rapp [with factor 0.8] overlapped with Cortesi [k=0.53 for 1957] and 0.53/0.8 = 0.66 which is what I would expect. The k-factor for Statne [Becvar] was 0.77, for Istanbul [Gleissberg - of Gleissberg cycle fame] was 0.96. These values for 1948 and both observers used a 13 cm telescope. Consistent with Rapp [also 13.5 cm].

    So the mystery is why with the same scope Rapp has 0.8 and Cortesi has 0.53. The other observer [Pittini] at Locarno in the 1959-1978 period also had 0.6, so it is not Cortesi that has gone rogue or something. This whole thing is under investigation. I don’t know the answer yet.

    Geoff Sharp says:
    December 23, 2010 at 5:12 am
    Robuk has some valid points.
    No he hasn’t, as nobody doubts that very few spots were visible. And everybody recognize that the early observers were good [I showed him some drawings to make him understand that] and that their telescopes were adequate, so his nonsense [Leif, come CLEAN!] is uncalled for.

    I cant understand why you invoke L&P (whatever that is) to describe grand minima. You say there was isotope modulation during the Maunder, but how does it rate when compared with active times like recent decades past?
    The L&P is a simple and natural explanation for why no spots were seen and yet the modulation was on par with recent times. Here is McCracken and Beer: http://www.leif.org/research/McCracken-HMF2.png
    They have the level wrong, but that does not affect the modulation. If one would claim that the level was correct, then the Maunder Minimum modulation [as a fraction of the whole] would be much larger than the modern values. Pick your poison.
    Analysis [by Mayahara - Japanese Cedar trees] of 14C during both the Maunder and Spoerer minima also show a large variation. So, solar activity measured by its magnetic field and/or the number of CMEs [and their effect on cosmic rays] during those Grand Minima was considerable, and yet no spots were seen. To use your phrases, the speck ratio was extreme, in fact all spots had turned into specks. This is what the L&P effect is: the convection is weaker and specks do not grow to become spots. [All spots begin their life as specks which assemble into larger and larger spots, except when the L&P effect prevents them so doing so]. So, a grand minimum is not because the dynamo is disrupted and magnetic fields are scarce, but because the surface convection [causing the 'percolation'] is weaker [we don't know why - but perhaps during SC24 we'll find out].

  268. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 23, 2010 at 9:10 am
    There is a bit of mystery here. If Locarno with a factor of 0.6 matches Zurich that also has a factor of 0.6, then Locarno (13.5 cm telescope) and Zurich (8 cm) see the same things and the telescope size doesn’t matter
    It turns out to be very hard to get information about the exact instrumentation in Locarno. Their recent publications state 15 cm aperture. I have notes in Waldmeier’s own hand that in 1948 the instrument had 13.5 cm aperture. In both cases what is really important [according to Waldmeier] is the size of the projected image which has been constant at 25 cm diameter.

  269. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 23, 2010 at 9:10 am

    If we do assume the records are correct it probably makes the growth in sunspot numbers worse. If Wolfer did invent the weighting scheme as well as use the 150mm telescope at the same time as implementing the 0.6 factor then all would be sweet. But your research into the sudden jump at 1945 would suggest otherwise.

    So going on the accepted knowledge we still have 3 areas of possible steps in the counting method. The Waldmeier step being the largest but the increased speck ratio and larger telescopes also adding. The Locarno values look to be discounted by 0.6 to arrive at the SIDC value so we must assume these steps are in place.

    Your linked graph of the isotope modulation using a small sample of trees is not compelling. It is suggesting that the magnetic modulation is the same during the Maunder as SC19. That would be like comparing the F10.7 flux value of SC24 to SC19, we know the levels will be vastly different. Of course the grand minimum type cycle is still functioning but at a subdued rate and this same logic applies to L&P. Magnetic activity as I have shown is increasing with the cycle as it approaches cycle max, it is not slowly dying on a continuous ramp down. You cant have your cake and eat it too, but I have noticed you are now pushing the increasing speck ratio as a function of L&P’s observations which is totally plausible…I just dont think you need to measure every speck as it can only continue to drive down the overall magnetic count artificially. If L&P is just about more specks that is good, but the title of their paper suggests otherwise.

    I find it more interesting that ratio of large alpha spots with high magnetic strength is increasing but the F10.7 and EUV output from these groups is very weak. This is the bigger story I think.

  270. Geoff Sharp says:
    December 23, 2010 at 7:41 pm
    So going on the accepted knowledge we still have 3 areas of possible steps in the counting method. The Waldmeier step being the largest but the increased speck ratio and larger telescopes also adding.
    The larger telescopes are taken care of by applying a factor taking that into account, although I think that is a small effect. At any rate, it is measured empirically and so is not under debate. The increased number of specks is just L&P at work and actually leads to smaller sunspot numbers as the specks eventually disappear.

    Your linked graph of the isotope modulation using a small sample of trees is not compelling.
    What nonsense is that? The McCracken-Beer graph is derived from 10Be in ice cores. Mayahara’s cedar trees are just corroborating evidence [and their sample was not small - and in principle a single tree is all that is needed as we just need to measure the 14C value in each tree ring. 14C is a global thing, because of efficient atmospheric mixing]

    It is suggesting that the magnetic modulation is the same during the Maunder as SC19.
    It is not ‘suggesting’. The values are derived from measured values of the 10Be flux.
    i would be like comparing the F10.7 flux value of SC24 to SC19, we know the levels will be vastly different.
    Again, we measure that the modulation was the same, so we know that it was not vastly different.

    Magnetic activity as I have shown is increasing with the cycle as it approaches cycle max, it is not slowly dying on a continuous ramp down.
    You have not shown anything about magnetic activity. You postulate things. The cosmic ray guys and gals [Mayahara] actually measure stuff.

    just dont think you need to measure every speck as it can only continue to drive down the overall magnetic count artificially. If L&P is just about more specks that is good, but the title of their paper suggests otherwise.
    What they measure and say [and remember Bill L is a good friend of mine and we exchange views and data on this] amounts to this: There is a distribution of spots from large to specks. This is the vertical width of the points on their graph. That whole distribution is steadily shifting downwards in magnetic fields and upwards in intensity. What gets shifted under 1500 G and above 1.000 is still there, but is not visible. This means that although magnetic activity will be slightly lower by the downward shift of the distribution, the effect on the spot count will be much more severe, as the smaller spots will no longer be counted, and the sunspot number is dominated by the small spots. See e.g. http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2003/loc-d20031030.JPG and look at group 266. It has about 10 larger spots and 50 specks.

    I find it more interesting that ratio of large alpha spots with high magnetic strength is increasing but the F10.7 and EUV output from these groups is very weak. This is the bigger story I think.
    This is well-known and has simple explanation. F10.7 and EUV depends on a bipolar [or more] group with lots of close field lines going from one polarity to the other so the field in the chromosphere and corona that determine F10.7 and EUV is strong and hence F10.7 and EUV are strong. For alpha groups there is still the smae amount of both polarities, but where one polarity is concentrated in the visible spot, the other is spread over a large area around the spot. This spreads the field lines over a large volume and the field is thus weaker, and so is F10.7 and EUV. So, nothing fundamental or interesting there, if one knows what’s going on.
    As the specks disappears only larger spots will be left, like during the Maunder Minimum, where the reported spots were often large and single. All this makes eminent sense.

  271. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 23, 2010 at 8:39 pm

    None of your comments shed any light on the discussion, they just moved around the issues raised. We can leave it there if you like.

  272. Geoff Sharp says:
    December 24, 2010 at 12:40 am
    None of your comments shed any light on the discussion, they just moved around the issues raised. We can leave it there if you
    Well, I had hoped you would have contributed constructively, but if that is not to be, let us leave it where it is at.

  273. Realclimate

    Did the Sun hit record highs over the last few decades?

    Alec Rawls says:
    10 August 2005 at 2:04 AM

    Nice post, but the conclusion: “… solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming,” would seem to be a non-sequitur.

    What matters is not the trend in solar activity but the LEVEL. It does not have to KEEP going up to be a possible cause of warming. It just has to be high, and it has been since the forties.

    Presumably you are looking at the modest drop in temperature in the fifties and sixties as inconsistent with a simple solar warming explanation, but it doesn’t have to be simple. Earth has heat sinks that could lead to measured effects being delayed, and other forcings may also be involved. The best evidence for causality would seem to be the long term correlations between solar activity and temperature change. Despite the differences between the different proxies for solar activity, isn’t the overall picture one of long term correlation to temperature?

    [Response: You are correct in that you would expect a lag, however, the response to an increase to a steady level of forcing is a lagged increase in temperature and then a asymptotic relaxation to the eventual equilibirum. This is not what is seen. In fact, the rate of temperature increase is rising, and that is only compatible with a continuing increase in the forcing, i.e. from greenhouse gases. - gavin]

    ===========================================================

    For me, the evidence above is clear, a ramp up of TSI from around 1900 and then a steady high from 1940 to 2000 leading to the slightly higher temperatures we see today, no room for CO2.
    Sun spots or the lack of them are just the visual marker of an active or less active sun which correlate well with temperature trends here on earth. In fact it is hard to find a better correlation between two variables.
    Gavins response is utter rubbish if the two graphs above are correct.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/

  274. Robuk says:
    December 24, 2010 at 10:08 am
    For me, the evidence above is clear, a ramp up of TSI from around 1900 and then a steady high from 1940 to 2000 leading to the slightly higher temperatures we see today, no room for CO2.
    TSI today is what it was in 1900 because the magnetic field that drives variations of TSI is today what it was around 1900.

  275. Robuk says:
    December 24, 2010 at 10:08 am

    What matters is not the trend in solar activity but the LEVEL. It does not have to KEEP going up to be a possible cause of warming. It just has to be high, and it has been since the forties.

    Exactly, and as the warmists seem to forget, the ocean oscillations also play a major role. Trying to link all climate variation with solar output is just creating a strawman. Mixing solar variation with oceanic patterns completely explains the last 100 years of world climate trends.

  276. Why do you believe it will last two cycles or be limited to two cycles?

    A prediction for the next 2 cycles only doesn’t preclude the effect continuing after that, but if longer term predictions can’t be reliably made based on the data available, it’s good to not make them.

    We don’t know enough about what makes the sun tick to make any long term predictions (nor do we know enough about what makes planetary climate systems tick to make long term predictions about those, not even a month ahead, not that stops greenies from making sweeping predictions for centuries in the future based on cooked computer models in order to sell their agenda).

  277. JTW says:
    December 25, 2010 at 12:08 am
    A prediction for the next 2 cycles only doesn’t preclude the effect continuing after that, but if longer term predictions can’t be reliably made based on the data available, it’s good to not make them.
    The prediction record shows that we can probably predict one cycle ahead, once we know the polar fields a few years before solar minimum. Any more than that will be statistics only, but that has some merit too, once you accept that it only in a statistical sense and that you might be wrong.

  278. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 24, 2010 at 10:44 am

    Robuk says:
    December 24, 2010 at 10:08 am
    For me, the evidence above is clear, a ramp up of TSI from around 1900 and then a steady high from 1940 to 2000 leading to the slightly higher temperatures we see today, no room for CO2.
    TSI today is what it was in 1900 because the magnetic field that drives variations of TSI is today what it was around 1900,

    Are these two graphs total rubbish, they appear to show a rising TSI, perhaps there is some other Unknown force, I beleive the jet stream was not discovered until the mid 1940`s and the PDO until the mid 1990`s.

  279. TSI is not worth considering. The AGW crowd will lean on this at every opportunity. Solar output is more than just heat, the magnetic and EUV output varies on much larger scales and is now looking to influence atmospheric changes at a minimum….just look at the northern hemisphere right now.

  280. Geoff Sharp says:
    December 25, 2010 at 5:48 am
    TSI is not worth considering. The AGW crowd will lean on this at every opportunity. Solar output is more than just heat, the magnetic and EUV output varies on much larger scales
    The energy in those ‘other’ things are tens of thousands times smaller.

  281. The AGW debate ended at about the same point when debt capacity and income growth ended. Those who were left with the budget tab for these two massive errors will be hurt the most by a cooling outcome.

Comments are closed.